We study requirements for safe communication in systems of reactive components in which components communicate via synchronized execution of common actions. These systems are modelled in the framework of team automata in which any number of components can participate--as a sender or as a receiver--in the execution of a communication action. Moreover, there is no fixed synchronisation policy as these policies in general depend on the application. In this short paper, we reconsider the concept of safe communication in terms of reception and responsiveness requirements, originally defined for synchronisation policies determined by a synchronisation type. Illustrated by a motivating example, we propose three extensions. First, compliance, i.e. satisfaction of communication requirements, does not have to be immediate. Second, the synchronisation type (and hence the communication requirements) no longer has to be uniform, but can be specified per action. Third, we introduce final states to be able to distinguish between possible and guaranteed executions of actions.
Team Automata@Work: On Safe Communication
ter Beek M. H.;
2020
Abstract
We study requirements for safe communication in systems of reactive components in which components communicate via synchronized execution of common actions. These systems are modelled in the framework of team automata in which any number of components can participate--as a sender or as a receiver--in the execution of a communication action. Moreover, there is no fixed synchronisation policy as these policies in general depend on the application. In this short paper, we reconsider the concept of safe communication in terms of reception and responsiveness requirements, originally defined for synchronisation policies determined by a synchronisation type. Illustrated by a motivating example, we propose three extensions. First, compliance, i.e. satisfaction of communication requirements, does not have to be immediate. Second, the synchronisation type (and hence the communication requirements) no longer has to be uniform, but can be specified per action. Third, we introduce final states to be able to distinguish between possible and guaranteed executions of actions.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
prod_423822-doc_150982.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: Team Automata@Work: On Safe Communication
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Dimensione
361.05 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
361.05 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
|
prod_423822-doc_150983.pdf
non disponibili
Descrizione: Team Automata@Work: On Safe Communication
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Dimensione
290.68 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
290.68 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


