Communicating sequential processes
Communicating sequential processes
Diagnostic model-checking for real-time systems
Proceedings of the DIMACS/SYCON workshop on Hybrid systems III : verification and control: verification and control
Verification of an audio control protocol within real time process algebra
FMSP '98 Proceedings of the second workshop on Formal methods in software practice
Formal Specification and Verification of Digital Systems
Formal Specification and Verification of Digital Systems
Specification of Timing Constraints within the Circal Process Algebra
AMAST '97 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology
Verification of an Audio Control Protocol
ProCoS Proceedings of the Third International Symposium Organized Jointly with the Working Group Provably Correct Systems on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems
Modelling a Time-Dependent Protocol Using the Circal Process Algebra
HART '97 Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hybrid and Real-Time Systems
Automated Analysis of an Audio Control Protocol
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
Verification of an Audio Protocol with Bus Collision Using UPPAAL
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
A Set-Theoretic Model for Real-Time Specification and Reasoning
MPC '98 Proceedings of the Mathematics of Program Construction
Two examples of verification of multirate timed automata with Kronos
RTSS '95 Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium
Proof-checking an audio control protocol with LP
Proof-checking an audio control protocol with LP
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper we present two different approaches used in specifying a well-known audio control protocol with real-time characteristics. The first approach is based on Circal, a process algebra that permits a natural representation of timing properties and the analysis of interesting aspects of timing systems. The second approach is based on the Timed Interval Calculus, a set-theoretical notation for concisely expressing properties of timed intervals. The comparison between the two approaches shows that they are almost complementary: the former allows an easy modelling of the most procedural aspects of the protocol and provides a fully automatic proof but cannot catch all timing aspects; the latter allows easy modelling of all timing properties but the proof is quite hard and cannot be fully automated. This suggests a decomposition of the proof into subproofs to be performed in difierent proof environments.