More Relational Concurrent Refinement: Traces and Partial Relations
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Refinement of State-Based Systems: ASMs and Big Commuting Diagrams (Abstract)
ABZ '08 Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Abstract State Machines, B and Z
Modelling Divergence in Relational Concurrent Refinement
IFM '09 Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods
Relational Concurrent Refinement: Automata
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Incompleteness of relational simulations in the blocking paradigm
Science of Computer Programming
Relational concurrent refinement: timed refinement
FMOODS'11/FORTE'11 Proceedings of the joint 13th IFIP WG 6.1 and 30th IFIP WG 6.1 international conference on Formal techniques for distributed systems
From ODP viewpoint consistency to Integrated Formal Methods
Computer Standards & Interfaces
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Two styles of description arise naturally in formal specification: state-based and behavioural. In state-based notations, a system is characterised by a collection of variables, and their values determine which actions may occur throughout a system history. Behavioural specifications describe the chronologies of actions—interactions between a system and its environment. The exact nature of such interactions is captured in a variety of semantic models with corresponding notions of refinement; refinement in state based systems is based on the semantics of sequential programs and is modelled relationally. Acknowledging that these viewpoints are complementary, substantial research has gone into combining the paradigms. The purpose of this paper is to do three things. First, we survey recent results linking the relational model of refinement to the process algebraic models. Specifically, we detail how variations in the relational framework lead to relational data refinement being in correspondence with traces–divergences, singleton failures and failures–divergences refinement in a process semantics. Second, we generalise these results by providing a general flexible scheme for incorporating the two main “erroneous” concurrent behaviours: deadlock and divergence, into relational refinement. This is shown to subsume previous characterisations. In doing this we derive relational refinement rules for specifications containing both internal operations and outputs that corresponds to failures–divergences refinement. Third, the theory has been formally specified and verified using the interactive theorem prover KIV.