过程演算可编码准则的分析与比较

Kirstin Peters, R. V. Glabbeek
{"title":"过程演算可编码准则的分析与比较","authors":"Kirstin Peters, R. V. Glabbeek","doi":"10.4204/EPTCS.190.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with quality criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.","PeriodicalId":280633,"journal":{"name":"Arch. Formal Proofs","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria for Process Calculi\",\"authors\":\"Kirstin Peters, R. V. Glabbeek\",\"doi\":\"10.4204/EPTCS.190.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with quality criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":280633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arch. Formal Proofs\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arch. Formal Proofs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.190.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arch. Formal Proofs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.190.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

编码或证明其不存在是比较过程演算的主要方法。为了分析编码的质量并排除琐碎或无意义的编码,它们被添加了质量标准。为了在不同的环境下进行推理,有很多不同的标准和不同的标准变体。这导致了无可比拟的结果。此外,在特定情况下用于获得结果的标准是否确实适合于这种情况并不总是很清楚。我们将展示如何通过将可编码性标准映射到由编码函数引起的源项和目标项之间关系的需求上,从而正式地推理和比较可编码性标准。我们特别分析了常见的标准完全抽象,操作对应,发散反射,成功敏感性和尊重倒刺;例如,我们分析了由操作对应的不同变体引起的模拟关系(耦合模拟与双模拟)的确切性质。通过这种方式,我们将分析或比较可编码性标准的问题简化为更容易理解的比较过程关系的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria for Process Calculi
Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with quality criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信