### Skapa referens, olika format (klipp och klistra)

**Harvard**

Prasad, K. (2001) *Broadcast Calculus Interpreted in CCS upto Bisimulation*.

** BibTeX **

@article{

Prasad2001,

author={Prasad, K. V. S.},

title={Broadcast Calculus Interpreted in CCS upto Bisimulation},

journal={Electronical Notes in Theoretical Computer Science},

issn={1571-0661},

volume={52},

issue={1},

pages={83-100},

abstract={A function M is given that takes any process p in the calculus of broadcasting systems CBS and returns a CCS process M(p) with special actions {hear?, heard!, say?, said!} such that a broadcast of ω by p is matched by the sequence say? τ∗said(ω) by M(p) and a reception of υ by hear(v) τ∗heard!. It is shown that p ∼ M(p), where ∼ is a bisimulation equivalence using the above matches, and that M(p) has no CCS behaviour not covered by ∼. Thus the abstraction of a globally synchronising broadcast can be implemented by sequences of local synchronisations. The criteria of correctness are unusual, and arguably stronger than requiring equivalences to be preserved — the latter does not guarantee that meaning is preserved. Since ∼ is not a native CCS equivalence, it is a matter of dicussion what the result says about Holmer's (CONCUR'93) conjecture, partially proved by Ene and Muntean (FCT'99), that CCS cannot interpret CBS upto preservation of equivalence.},

year={2001},

}

** RefWorks **

RT Journal Article

SR Print

ID 193381

A1 Prasad, K. V. S.

T1 Broadcast Calculus Interpreted in CCS upto Bisimulation

YR 2001

JF Electronical Notes in Theoretical Computer Science

SN 1571-0661

VO 52

IS 1

SP 83

AB A function M is given that takes any process p in the calculus of broadcasting systems CBS and returns a CCS process M(p) with special actions {hear?, heard!, say?, said!} such that a broadcast of ω by p is matched by the sequence say? τ∗said(ω) by M(p) and a reception of υ by hear(v) τ∗heard!. It is shown that p ∼ M(p), where ∼ is a bisimulation equivalence using the above matches, and that M(p) has no CCS behaviour not covered by ∼. Thus the abstraction of a globally synchronising broadcast can be implemented by sequences of local synchronisations. The criteria of correctness are unusual, and arguably stronger than requiring equivalences to be preserved — the latter does not guarantee that meaning is preserved. Since ∼ is not a native CCS equivalence, it is a matter of dicussion what the result says about Holmer's (CONCUR'93) conjecture, partially proved by Ene and Muntean (FCT'99), that CCS cannot interpret CBS upto preservation of equivalence.

LA eng

OL 30