No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Mapping Fusion and Synchronized Hyperedge Replacement into logic programming*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2007
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
In this paper we compare three different formalisms that can be used in the area of models for distributed, concurrent and mobile systems. In particular we analyze the relationships between a process calculus, the Fusion Calculus, graph transformations in the Synchronized Hyperedge Replacement with Hoare synchronization (HSHR) approach and logic programming. We present a translation from Fusion Calculus into HSHR (whereas Fusion Calculus uses Milner synchronization) and prove a correspondence between the reduction semantics of Fusion Calculus and HSHR transitions. We also present a mapping from HSHR into a transactional version of logic programming and prove that there is a full correspondence between the two formalisms. The resulting mapping from Fusion Calculus to logic programming is interesting since it shows the tight analogies between the two formalisms, in particular for handling name generation and mobility. The intermediate step in terms of HSHR is convenient since graph transformations allow for multiple, remote synchronizations, as required by Fusion Calculus semantics.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Regular Papers
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
References
Bruni, R. and Montanari, U. 2000. Zero-safe nets: Comparing the collective and individual token approaches. Information and Computation 156, 1–2, 46–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruni, R., Montanari, U., and Rossi, F. 2001. An interactive semantics of logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 6, 647–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degano, P. and Montanari, U. 1987. A model for distributed systems based on graph rewriting. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 34, 2, 411–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Montanari, U., and Rozenberg, G., Eds. 1999. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Vol.3: Concurrency, Parallelism, and Distribution. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Pfender, M., and Schneider, H. J. 1973. Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. In Proc. of IEEE Conference on Automata and Switching Theory. IEEE Computer Society, 167–180.Google Scholar
Ferrari, G. L., Montanari, U., and Tuosto, E. 2001. A LTS semantics of ambients via graph synchronization with mobility. In Proc. of ICTCS'01. LNCS, vol. 2202. Springer, 1–16.Google Scholar
Gardner, P. and Wischik, L. 2000. Explicit fusions. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. 373–382.Google Scholar
Gardner, P. and Wischik, L. 2004. Strong bisimulation for the explicit fusion calculus. In Proc. of FoSSaCS'04. LNCS, vol. 2987. Springer, 484–498.Google Scholar
Hirsch, D. 2003. Graph transformation models for software architecture styles. Ph.D. thesis, Departamento de Computación, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
Hirsch, D., Inverardi, P., and Montanari, U. 2000. Reconfiguration of software architecture styles with name mobility. In Proc. of COORDINATION 2000. LNCS, vol. 1906. Springer, 148–163.Google Scholar
Hirsch, D. and Montanari, U. 2001. Synchronized hyperedge replacement with name mobility. In Proc. of CONCUR'01. LNCS, vol. 2154. Springer, 121–136.Google Scholar
Jensen, O. H. and Milner, R. 2003. Bigraphs and transitions. SIGPLAN Not. 38, 1, 38–49.Google Scholar
König, B. and Montanari, U. 2001. Observational equivalence for synchronized graph rewriting. In Proc. of TACS'01. LNCS, vol. 2215. Springer, 145–164.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. 2002. Process synchronization in distributed systems via Horn clauses. M.S. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. Downloadable from http://www.di.unipi.it/~lanese/tesi.ps.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. 2006. Synchronization strategies for global computing models. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. and Montanari, U. 2002. Software architectures, global computing and graph transformation via logic programming. In Proc. SBES'2002 – 16th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. Anais, 11–35.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. and Montanari, U. 2004a. A graphical fusion calculus. In Proc. of the Workshop of the COMETA Project on Computational Metamodels. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 104. Elsevier Science, 199–215.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. and Montanari, U. 2004b. Synchronization algebras with mobility for graph transformations. In Proc. of FGUC'04 – Foundations of Global Ubiquitous Computing. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 138. Elsevier Science, 43–60.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. and Montanari, U. 2005. Mapping fusion and synchronized hyperedge replacement into logic programming. Computing Research Repository (http://arxiv.org/corr/home). Paper n. cs.LO/0504050.Google Scholar
Lloyd, J. W. 1993. Foundations of Logic Programming, Second Extended Edition. Springer.Google Scholar
Milner, R., Parrow, J., and Walker, D. 1992. A calculus of mobile processes. Information and Computation 100, 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrow, J. and Victor, B. 1998. The fusion calculus: Expressiveness and symmetry in mobile processes. In Proc. of LICS'98. IEEE, Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Sangiorgi, D. 1993. A theory of bisimulation for the pi-calculus. In Proc. of CONCUR'93. LNCS, vol. 715. Springer, 127–142.Google Scholar
Victor, B. 1998. The fusion calculus: Expressiveness and symmetry in mobile processes. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 3
- Cited by