| abstract
| - Subtyping relations embody a notion of substitutability, and are an important tool in formal methods. The downward simulation relation is well-known and widely used as a subtyping and refinement relation for state-based approaches, but there is no single relation which is widely accepted to be the subtyping relation for the behavioural setting; however, there are several candidate relations. Developments such as the multi-viewpoint specification method of RM-ODP encourage the use of several different formal methods in a single project. Thus, it becomes important to obtain implementations of a single notion of subtyping in several different paradigms. In this thesis, we attempt to find a process algebraic relation which corresponds to the state-based subtyping relation, downward simulation. While trying to achieve this, we define a translation between a state-based notation and a process algebra, and we uncover some of the similarities and differences between these two specification paradigms. In particular, we investigate the meaning of undefined behaviour in each setting. When a state-based specification does not define an operation, the intent is that the system's behaviour is unspecified (not well-defined) if that operation is invoked. In a process algebra with refusals semantics, however, a process is implicitly specified to refuse any action it is not specified to accept, and such a refusal constitutes well-defined behaviour. As part of our translation, we devise a method of representing the unspecified behaviour of the state-based world in a process definition. Finally, we use our translation to prove that the presence of subtyping between a pair of state-based specifications implies reduction between their LOTOS translations, but that the presence of reduction does not imply subtyping. We conclude that reduction itself does not correspond to state-based subtyping, but that any relation which does must be based on a stronger semantics than reduction, such as bisimulation semantics.
- Subtyping relations embody a notion of substitutability, and are an important tool in formal methods. The downward simulation relation is well-known and widely used as a subtyping and refinement relation for state-based approaches, but there is no single relation which is widely accepted to be the subtyping relation for the behavioural setting; however, there are several candidate relations. Developments such as the multi-viewpoint specification method of RM-ODP encourage the use of several different formal methods in a single project. Thus, it becomes important to obtain implementations of a single notion of subtyping in several different paradigms. In this thesis, we attempt to find a process algebraic relation which corresponds to the state-based subtyping relation, downward simulation. While trying to achieve this, we define a translation between a state-based notation and a process algebra, and we uncover some of the similarities and differences between these two specification paradigms. In particular, we investigate the meaning of undefined behaviour in each setting. When a state-based specification does not define an operation, the intent is that the system's behaviour is unspecified (not well-defined) if that operation is invoked. In a process algebra with refusals semantics, however, a process is implicitly specified to refuse any action it is not specified to accept, and such a refusal constitutes well-defined behaviour. As part of our translation, we devise a method of representing the unspecified behaviour of the state-based world in a process definition. Finally, we use our translation to prove that the presence of subtyping between a pair of state-based specifications implies reduction between their LOTOS translations, but that the presence of reduction does not imply subtyping. We conclude that reduction itself does not correspond to state-based subtyping, but that any relation which does must be based on a stronger semantics than reduction, such as bisimulation semantics.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)