Results 1  10
of
13
µCRL: A toolset for analysing algebraic specifications
 Proc. 13th Conference on Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 2102
, 2001
"... µCRL [13] is a language for specifying and verifying distributed systems in an algebraic fashion. It targets the specification of system behaviour in a processalgebraic style and of data elements in the form of abstract data types. The µCRL toolset [21] (see ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
µCRL [13] is a language for specifying and verifying distributed systems in an algebraic fashion. It targets the specification of system behaviour in a processalgebraic style and of data elements in the form of abstract data types. The µCRL toolset [21] (see
Checking Asynchronously Communicating Components Using Symbolic Transition Systems
 CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, volume 3291 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2004
"... Explicit behavioural interface description languages (BIDLs, protocols) are now recognized as a mandatory feature of component languages in order to address component reuse, coordination, adaptation and verification issues. Such protocol languages often deal with synchronous communication. However, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Explicit behavioural interface description languages (BIDLs, protocols) are now recognized as a mandatory feature of component languages in order to address component reuse, coordination, adaptation and verification issues. Such protocol languages often deal with synchronous communication. However, in the context of distributed systems, components communicating asynchronously through mailboxes are much more relevant. In this paper, we advocate for the use of Symbolic Transition Systems as a protocol language which may deal also with this kind of communication. We then present how this generic formalism, specialized with different mailbox protocols, may be used to address verification issues related to the component mailboxes. 1
Cones and Foci for Protocol Verification Revisited
 In Proc. 6th Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, LNCS 2620
, 2003
"... Abstract. We define a cones and foci proof method, which rephrases the question whether two system specifications are branching bisimilar in terms of proof obligations on relations between data objects. Compared to the original cones and foci method from Groote and Springintveld [22], our method is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We define a cones and foci proof method, which rephrases the question whether two system specifications are branching bisimilar in terms of proof obligations on relations between data objects. Compared to the original cones and foci method from Groote and Springintveld [22], our method is more generally applicable, and does not require a preprocessing step to eliminate τloops. We prove soundness of our approach and give an application. 1
The cones and foci proof technique for timed transition systems
 Information Processing Letters
"... ..."
Achieving Discrete Relative Timing with Untimed Process Algebra
 In Proceedings of ICECCS 2007
, 2007
"... ..."
Checking Verifications of Protocols and Distributed Systems By Computer
, 1998
"... We provide a treatise about checking proofs of distributed systems by computer using general purpose proof checkers. In particular, we present two approaches to verifying and checking the verification of the Sequential Line Interface Protocol (SLIP), one using rewriting techniques and one using the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We provide a treatise about checking proofs of distributed systems by computer using general purpose proof checkers. In particular, we present two approaches to verifying and checking the verification of the Sequential Line Interface Protocol (SLIP), one using rewriting techniques and one using the socalled cones and foci theorem. Both verifications are carried out in the setting of process algebra. Finally, we present an overview of literature containing checked proofs. Note: The research of the second author is supported by Human Capital Mobility (HCM). 1 Proof checkers Anyone trying to use a proof checker, e.g. Isabelle [67, 68], HOL [29], Coq [20], PVS [78], BoyerMoore [14] or many others that exist today has experienced the same frustration. It is very difficult to prove even the simplest theorem. In the first place it is difficult to get acquainted to the logical language of the system. Most systems employ higher order logics that are extremely versatile and expressive. Howev...
Cones and foci: A mechanical framework for protocol verification
, 2006
"... We define a cones and foci proof method, which rephrases the question whether two system specifications are branching bisimilar in terms of proof obligations on relations between data objects. Compared to the original cones and foci method from Groote and Springintveld, our method is more generall ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We define a cones and foci proof method, which rephrases the question whether two system specifications are branching bisimilar in terms of proof obligations on relations between data objects. Compared to the original cones and foci method from Groote and Springintveld, our method is more generally applicable, because it does not require a preprocessing step to eliminate τloops. We prove soundness of our approach and present a set of rules to prove the reachability of focus points. Our method has been formalized and proved correct using PVS. Thus we have established a framework for mechanical protocol verification. We apply this framework to the Concurrent Alternating Bit Protocol.
A Distributed Algorithm in Agda: The Dining Philosophers Problem
, 1999
"... One distributed algorithm for the dining philosophers problem [1] is implemented in Agda, a proof checker based on MartinLof's type theory. The correctness proof of the algorithm is outlined and the difficulties are discussed. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
One distributed algorithm for the dining philosophers problem [1] is implemented in Agda, a proof checker based on MartinLof's type theory. The correctness proof of the algorithm is outlined and the difficulties are discussed.