Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria

Select |




Print


Peters, Kirstin; van Glabbeek, Robert

Peters, Kirstin; van Glabbeek, Robert


2015-08-26


Conference Material


Combined 22th International Workshop on Expressiveness in Concurrency and 12th Workshop on Structural Operational Semantics


Madrid, Spain


46-60


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.


Open Publishing Association


Process Calculi, Encodings, Encodability Criteria, Operational Correspondence, Simulation Relations


https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.190.4


http://www.math.unipd.it/~crafa/EXPRESSSOS2015/


© 2015


English


nicta:8247


Peters, Kirstin; van Glabbeek, Robert. Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria. In: Silvia Crafa & Daniel Gebler Editor, editor/s. Combined 22th International Workshop on Expressiveness in Concurrency and 12th Workshop on Structural Operational Semantics; Madrid, Spain. Open Publishing Association; 2015-08-26. 46-60. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.190.4



Loading citation data...

Citation counts
(Requires subscription to view)