Team Automata@Work: On Safe Communication

Beek, Maurice H. ter; Hennicker, Rolf; Kleijn, Jetty

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50029-0_5

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further desired extension concerns the introduction of designated states in CA where execution can stop but may also continue, in addition to states where progress is required. As sketched in [9], their addition has significant and useful consequences for the derivation of communication requirements and compliance. Proof.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use extended labels as envisioned in [13] for multi component-interaction automata, to indicate explicitly which components are actively participating in [9]] system transitions. In the vector team automata of [10], vectors of component actions are used for this purpose, giving rise to a concurrent semantics.…”

Section: Background and Extended Team Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weak compliance In [6], we relaxed compliance to allow the team to execute some intermediate internal actions before being ready for the required communication. As anticipated in the introduction and in [9], in this paper we further relax the notion of weak compliance from [6]: if a group J of components has issued a communication request we allow the team to execute, without participation of J , some arbitrary other actions before being ready for the required communication. This is a very flexible interpretation of interaction compatibility that, to the best of our knowledge, has not yet been studied in a similar way in the literature, likely because the permission of intermediate actions is dangerous for obtaining compositionality results.…”

Section: Communication Requirements and Compliancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conditions for safe communication in terms of receptiveness and responsiveness were considered in [2,11,17,21] for (web) services and in [6,7,9,15] for team automata. Output actions not accepted as input by some component are considered as message loss or as unspecified receptions [12,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the short paper contribution [9], we briefly reviewed our previous approach from [6] and we identified some limitations leading to issues for future research. A first issue was that the assignment of a single synchronisation type to a team, as in [6], is too restrictive and that we need to fine tune the number of synchronising sending and receiving components per action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Beek

Hennicker

Kleijn

2020

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study guarantees for safe communication in systems of systems composed of reactive components that communicate through synchronised execution of common actions. Systems are modelled as (extended) team automata, in which, in principle, any number of component automata can participate in the execution of a communicating action, either as a sender or as a receiver. We extend team automata with synchronisation type specifications, which determine specific synchronisation policies fine-tuned for particular application domains. On the other hand, synchronisation type specifications generate communication requirements for receptiveness and responsiveness. We propose a new, liberal version of requirement satisfaction which allows teams to execute arbitrary intermediate actions before being ready for the required communication, which is important in practice. Then we turn to the composition of systems and show that composition behaves well with respect to synchronisation type specifications. As a central result, we investigate criteria that ensure the preservation of local communication properties when (extended) team automata are composed. This is particularly challenging in the context of weak requirement satisfaction. This apparently simple generalisation has a significant consequence: among the 'arbitrary other actions' there may be output or input actions open to the environment. This is a potentially dangerous situation, since in this case local communication properties can be violated after composition with other teams. This leads us to the third, perhaps most important, contribution of the current paper. We consider composition of systems and of teams. First, we show that composition behaves well with synchronisation types (Theorem 1). Then we investigate conditions under which communication properties are preserved by ETA composition. The principle idea is that for this it should be sufficient to consider interface actions and to check (global) compliance conditions for them. We formulate appropriate conditions, first for the case of (strong) receptiveness and responsiveness (Theorem 2) and then for the weak variant of the two, solving the problem sketched above (Theorem 3). An intuitive running example guides the reader through the paper. Outline After introducing extended team automata (ETA) in Section 2, we consider synchronisation type specifications and ETA determined by them in Section 3. (Weak) compliance of ETA with communication requirements and safe communication are treated in Section 4. In Section 5, we define the composition of systems and of teams, and we show that this works well with synchronisation type specifications. In Section 6, we provide our main compositionality results. Full proofs and some insightful counterexamples of the results presented in the latter two sections can be found in Appendices A and B. After discussing related work in Section 7, we conclude the paper in Section 8.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Extended Team Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communication Requirements and Compliancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Beek

Hennicker

Kleijn

2020

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Team Automata: Overview and Roadmap

ter Beek,

Hennicker,

Proença

2024

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Theory of Composing Protocols

Bocchi¹,

Orchard²,

Voinea³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Real-world communication protocols are often built out of a number of simpler protocols that cater for some specific functionality (e.g., banking, authentication). However much of the formal definitions of protocols used for program verification treat protocols as monolithic units. Composition is considered for implementations of a protocol, but not for the protocols themselves as engineering components. We propose primitives and techniques for the modular composition of protocols. Our notion of composition defines an interleaving of two or more protocols in a way that satisfies user-specified context-dependent constraints which serve to explain "contact points" between the protocols. The resulting approach gives a theoretical basis for protocol (re-)engineering based on a process calculus with constraint annotations. We have implemented our approach as a tool for Erlang that supports generation of protocol compositions with formal guarantees, and code generation/extraction.

show abstract

Team Automata@Work: On Safe Communication

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Team Automata: Overview and Roadmap

A Theory of Composing Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About