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.
2020
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo" - ISTI
Inglese
S. Bliudze; L. Bocchi
Proceedings of the 22nd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages (COORDINATION'20)
22nd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages (COORDINATION'20)
77
85
9
978-3-030-50028-3
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-50029-0_5
Sì, ma tipo non specificato
15-19 June 2020
Valletta, Malta
Team Automata
Reactive components
Synchronisation policy
Safe communication
Compatibility
3
partially_open
ter Beek, M. H.; Hennicker, R.; Kleijn, J.
273
info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
04 Contributo in convegno::04.01 Contributo in Atti di convegno
File in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/411933
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact