Petri nets, event structures and domains, part I

Nielsen, Mogens; Plotkin, Gordon; Winskel, Glynn

doi:10.1016/0304-3975(81)90112-2

Cited by 783 publications

(489 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

481

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Event structures [10,21] abstract away from the cyclic structure of the process and consider only events (strictly speaking event occurrences), assumed to be the atomic computational steps, and the cause/effect relationships between them. Thus, we can classify event structures as behavioural, branching and noninterleavin9 models.…”

Section: Noninterleaving Vs Interleaving Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this subsection we complete the construction of the coreflections I_IzS ~ TSI and dI.ES ~ dTSI by showing the existence of coreflections LES ~ oTSI and diES ,---> doTSI, reminiscent of the connection between event structures and domains of configurations [10,21].…”

Section: Occurrence Tsi's and Labelled Event Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a result gives yet another characterisation of (the finite elements of) coherent, finitary, prime algebraic domains [10,21]. Moreover, this axiomatisation is given only in terms of conditions on the structure of transition systems.…”

Section: From It We Obtain ~ = (Re Id) O (Id Id) Which Is (Re Id)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, in addition to standard models like languages, automata and transition systems [6,13], models like Petri nets [1211 process algebras [9,4], Hoare traces [5], Mazurkiewicz traces [8], synchronisation trees [20] and event structures [10,21] have been introduced.…”

Section: O Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Models for concurrency: Towards a classification

Sassone

Nielsen

Winskel

1996

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models for concurrency can be classified with respect to three relevant parameters: behaviour/ system, interleaving/noninterleaving, linear/branching time. When modelling a process, a choice concerning such parameters corresponds to choosing the level of abstraction of the resulting semantics.In this paper, we move a step towards a classification of models for concurrency based on the parameters above. Formally, we choose a representative of any of the eight classes of models obtained by varying the three parameters, and we study the formal relationships between them using the language of category theory. O. IntroductionMuch effort in the development of the theory of concurrency has been devoted to the study of suitable models for concurrent and distributed processes, and to the formal understanding of their semantics.As a result, in addition to standard models like languages, automata and transition systems [6,13], models like Petri nets [1211 process algebras [9,4], Hoare traces [5], Mazurkiewicz traces [8], synchronisation trees [20] and event structures [10,21] have been introduced.The idea common to the models above is that they are based on atomic units of change -transitions, actions, events or symbols from an alphabet -which are indivisible and constitute the steps out of which computations are built.The difference between the models may be expressed in terms of the parameters according to which models are often classified. For instance, a distinction made explicitly in the theory of Petri nets, but sensible in a wider context, is that between so-called

show abstract

Section: Noninterleaving Vs Interleaving Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Occurrence Tsi's and Labelled Event Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: From It We Obtain ~ = (Re Id) O (Id Id) Which Is (Re Id)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: O Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Models for concurrency: Towards a classification

Sassone

Nielsen

Winskel

1996

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years there has been a growing interest in the use of unfolding-based approaches. Originally introduced in the setting of Petri nets, the unfolding semantics [14] is a branching partial order semantics which represents in a single structure all the possible events in computations, and their causal dependencies and conflicts (branching points). Each branch represents a concurrent execution of the net, in the form of an acyclic conflict-free net.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Unfolding of Petri Nets

Baldan

Haar

König

2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Some recent Petri net-based approaches to fault diagnosis of distributed systems suggest to factor the problem into local diagnoses based on the unfoldings of local views of the system, which are then correlated with diagnoses from neighbouring supervisors. In this paper we propose a notion of system factorisation expressed in terms of pullback decomposition. To ensure coherence of the local views and completeness of the diagnosis, data exchange among the unfolders needs to be specified with care. We introduce interleaving structures as a format for data exchange between unfolders and we propose a distributed algorithm for computing local views of the unfolding for each system component. The theory of interleaving structures is developed to prove correctness of the distributed unfolding algorithm.

show abstract

Petri Net Unfoldings — Properties

Couvreur¹,

Poitrenaud²

2009

Petri Nets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Petri nets, event structures and domains, part I

Cited by 783 publications

References 4 publications

Models for concurrency: Towards a classification

Models for concurrency: Towards a classification

Distributed Unfolding of Petri Nets

Petri Net Unfoldings — Properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About