SOS for higher order processes

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Volumn 3653, Issue , 2005, Pages 308-322

  Mousavi, MohammadReza ^a   Gabbay, Murdoch J ^b   Reniers, Michel A ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bisimulation; Congruence; Congruence Rule Formats; Formal Semantics; Structural Operational Semantics

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONCURRENCY CONTROL;

BISIMULATION; CALCULUS OF HIGHER ORDER COMMUNICATING SYSTEMS (CHOCS); CONGRUENCE; CONGRUENCE RULE FORMATS; FORMAL SEMANTICS; PROMOTED PANTH; STRUCTURAL OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS (SOS); TYFT/TYXT FORMAT;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 27244432607     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/11539452_25     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. L. Aceto, W. J. Fokkink, and G. Verhoef. Structural operational semantics, In Handbook of Process Algebra, Chapter 3, pages 197-292. Elsevier Science, 2001.
2. E. Astesiano, A. Giovini, and G. Reggio, Generalized bisimulation in relational specifications. In Proc. of STACS'88, volume 294 of LNCS, pages 207-226, Springer, 1988.
3. K. L. Bernstein. A congruence theorem for structured operational semantics of higher-order languages. In Proc. of LICS'98, pages 153-164. IEEE CS, 1998.
4. B. Bloom. Structural operational semantics for weak bisimulations, TCS, 146:25-68, 1995.
5. R. Bol and J. F. Groote. The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. JACM, 43(5):863-914, 1996.
6. G. Boudol. Towards a lambda-calculus for concurrent and communicating systems. In Proc. of TAPSOFT'89, volume 351 of LNCS, pages 149-161, Springer, 1989.
7. W. J. Fokkink and R. J. van Glabbeek, Ntyft/ntyxt rules reduce to ntree rules. I&C, 126(1):1-10, 1996.
8. W. J. Fokkink and C. Verhoef. A conservative look at operational semantics with variable binding. I&C, 146(1):24-54, 1998.
9. M. J. Gabbay and J. Cheney. A Sequent Calculus for Nominal Logic, In Proc. of LICS'04, pages 139-148, IEEE CS, 2004.
10. V. Galpin. A format for semantic equivalence comparison, TCS, 309(1-3):65-109, 2003.
11. R. J. van Glabbeek and W. P. Weijland. Branching Time and Abstraction in Bisimulation Semantics. JACM, 43(3):555-600, 1996.
12. J. F. Groote, Transition system specifications with negative premises. TCS, 118(2):263-299, 1993.
13. J. F. Groote and F. W. Vaandrager. Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. I&C, 100(2):202-260, 1992.
14. D. J. Howe. Proving congruence of bisimulation in functional programming languages. I&C, 124:103-112, 1996.
15. C. A. Middelburg. Variable binding operators in transition system specifications. JLAP, 47(1):15-45, 2001.
16. A. M. Pitts. Nominal logic, a first order theory of names and binding, I&C, 186(2):165-193, 2003.
17. G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. JLAP, 60:17-139, 2004.
18. D. Sands, From SOS rules to proof principles: An operational metatheory for functional languages. Proc. of POPL'97, pages 428-441, ACM Press, 1997.
19. D. Sangiorgi. The Lazy lambda calculus in a concurrency scenario. I&C, 111(1):120-153, 1994.
20. D. Sangiorgi. Bisimulation for Higher-Order Process Calculi. I&C, 131(2):141-178, 1996.
21. B. Thomsen. Plain CHOCS a second generation calculus for higher order processes. Acta Informatica, 30(1):1-59, 1993.
22. B. Thomsen. A theory of higher order communicating systems, I&C, 116:38-57, 1995.
23. C. Verhoef. A congruence theorem for structured operational semantics with predicates and negative premises. Nordic Journal of Computing, 2(2):274-302, 1995.