References

  1. S. Arun-Kummar & M. Hennessy (1992): An efficiency preorder for processes. Acta Informatica 29(8), pp. 737–760, doi:10.1007/BF01191894.
  2. J.C.M. Baeten (2005): A brief history of process algebra. Theoretical Computer Science 335(2–3), pp. 131–146, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2004.07.036.
  3. M. Baldamus, J. Parrow & B. Victor (2005): A Fully Abstract Encoding of the π-Calculus with Data Terms (Extended Abstract). In: Proc. of ICALP, LNCS 3580. Springer, pp. 1202–1213, doi:10.1007/11523468_97.
  4. J.A. Bergstra & J.W. Klop (1982): Fixed point semantics in process algebra. Technical Report IW 206/82. Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.
  5. F.S. Boer & C. Palamidessi (1991): Embedding as a tool for Language Comparison: On the CSP hierarchy. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 527. Springer, pp. 127–141, doi:10.1007/3-540-54430-5_85.
  6. G. Boudol (1992): Asynchrony and the π-calculus (note). Note. INRIA.
  7. G.N. Buckley & A. Silberschatz (1983): An Effective Implementation for the Generalized Input-Output Construct of CSP. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 5(2), pp. 223–235, doi:10.1145/69624.357208.
  8. N. Busi, M. Gabbrielli & G. Zavattaro (2009): On the expressive power of recursion, replication and iteration in process calculi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 19(6), pp. 1191–1222, doi:10.1017/S096012950999017X.
  9. D. Cacciagrano, F. Corradini, J. Aranda & F.D. Valencia (2008): Linearity, Persistence and Testing Semantics in the Asynchronous Pi-Calculus. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 194(2), pp. 59–84, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2007.11.006.
  10. M. Carbone & S. Maffeis (2003): On the Expressive Power of Polyadic Synchronisation in π-Calculus. Nordic Journal of Computing 10(2), pp. 70–98, doi:10.1016/S1571-0661(05)80361-5.
  11. C. Fournet & G. Gonthier (1996): The Reflexive CHAM and the Join-Calculus. In: Proc. of POPL, SIGPLAN-SIGACT. ACM, pp. 372–385, doi:10.1145/237721.237805.
  12. Y. Fu (2016): Theory of Interaction. Theoretical Computer Science 611, pp. 1–49, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.07.043.
  13. Y. Fu & H. Lu (2010): On the expressiveness of interaction. Theoretical Computer Science 411(11-13), pp. 1387–1451, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2009.11.011.
  14. R.J. van Glabbeek (1993): The Linear Time – Branching Time Spectrum II. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 715, pp. 66–81, doi:10.1007/3-540-57208-2_6.
  15. R.J. van Glabbeek (1994): On the expressiveness of ACP (extended abstract). In: Proc. of ACP, Workshops in Computing, pp. 188–217, doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2120-6_8.
  16. R.J. van Glabbeek (2001): The Linear Time – Branching Time Spectrum I: The Semantics of Conrete, Sequential Processes. Handbook of Process Algebra, pp. 3–99, doi:10.1016/B978-044482830-9/50019-9.
  17. R.J. van Glabbeek (2012): Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness. In: Proc. of EXPRESS/SOS, EPTCS 89, pp. 81–98, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.89.7.
  18. R.J. van Glabbeek (2018): A Theory of Encodings and Expressiveness (Extended Abstract). In: Proc. of FoSSaCS, LNCS 10803, pp. 183–202, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89366-2_10.
  19. D. Gorla (2008): Towards a Unified Approach to Encodability and Separation Results for Process Calculi. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 5201, pp. 492–507, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85361-9_38.
  20. D. Gorla (2009): On the Relative Expressive Power of Calculi for Mobility. In: Proc. of MFPS, ENTCS 249, pp. 269–286, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2009.07.094.
  21. D. Gorla (2010): A taxonomy of process calculi for distribution and mobility. Distributed Computing 23(4), pp. 273–299, doi:10.1007/s00446-010-0120-6.
  22. D. Gorla (2010): Towards a Unified Approach to Encodability and Separation Results for Process Calculi. Information and Computation 208(9), pp. 1031–1053, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2010.05.002.
  23. D. Gorla & U. Nestmann (2014): Full abstraction for expressiveness: history, myths and facts. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, pp. 1–16, doi:10.1017/S0960129514000279.
  24. M. Hatzel, C. Wagner, K. Peters & U. Nestmann (2015): Encoding CSP into CCS. In: Proc. of EXPRESS/SOS, EPTCS 7, pp. 61–75, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.190.5.
  25. C. Hewitt, P. Bishop & R. Steiger (1973): A universal modular ACTOR formalism for artificial intelligence. In: Proc. of IJCAI. ACM, pp. 235–245.
  26. C.A.R. Hoare (1978): Communicating Sequential Processes. Communications of the ACM 21(8), pp. 666–677, doi:10.1145/359576.359585.
  27. K. Honda & M. Tokoro (1991): An Object Calculus for Asynchronous Communication. In: Proc. of ECOOP, LNCS 512, pp. 133–147, doi:10.1007/BFb0057019.
  28. K. Honda & N. Yoshida (1995): On Reduction-Based Process Semantics. Theoretical Computer Science 151(2), pp. 437–486, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(95)00074-7.
  29. F. Knabe (1993): A Distributed Protocol for Channel-Based Communication with Choice. Computers and Artificial Intelligence 12(5), pp. 475–490.
  30. C. Laneve & A. Vitale (2010): The Expressive Power of Synchronizations. In: Proc. of LICS. IEEE, pp. 382–391, doi:10.1109/LICS.2010.15.
  31. R.J. Lipton, L. Snyder & Y. Zalcstein (1974): A Comparative Study of Models of Parallel Computation. In: Proc. of SWAT. IEEE, pp. 145–155, doi:10.1109/SWAT.1974.2.
  32. R. Milner (1989): Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc..
  33. R. Milner (1992): Functions as Processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 2(2), pp. 119–141, doi:10.1017/S0960129500001407.
  34. R. Milner (1993): The Polyadic π-Calculus: a Tutorial. Logic and Algebra of Specification 94, pp. 203–246, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58041-3_6.
  35. R. Milner (1999): Communicating and Mobile Systems: The π-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  36. R. Milner, J. Parrow & D. Walker (1992): A Calculus of Mobile Processes, Part I and II. Information and Computation 100(1), pp. 1–77, doi:10.1016/0890-5401(92)90008-4.
  37. R. Milner & D. Sangiorgi (1992): Barbed Bisimulation. In: Proc. of ICALP, LNCS 623, pp. 685–695, doi:10.1007/3-540-55719-9_114.
  38. J.C. Mitchell (1993): On abstraction and the expressive power of programming languages. Science of Computer Programming 21(2), pp. 141–163, doi:10.1016/0167-6423(93)90004-9.
  39. U. Nestmann (1996): On Determinacy and Nondeterminacy in Concurrent Programming. Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
  40. U. Nestmann (2000): What is a ``Good'' Encoding of Guarded Choice?. Information and Computation 156(1-2), pp. 287–319, doi:10.1006/inco.1999.2822.
  41. U. Nestmann (2006): Welcome to the Jungle: A subjective Guide to Mobile Process Calculi. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 4137, pp. 52–63, doi:10.1007/11817949_4.
  42. U. Nestmann & B.C. Pierce (2000): Decoding Choice Encodings. Information and Computation 163(1), pp. 1–59, doi:10.1006/inco.2000.2868.
  43. C. Palamidessi (2003): Comparing the Expressive Power of the Synchronous and the Asynchronous π-calculi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 13(5), pp. 685–719, doi:10.1017/S0960129503004043.
  44. C. Palamidessi, V.A. Saraswat, F.D. Valencia & B. Victor (2006): On the Expressiveness of Linearity vs Persistence in the Asychronous Pi-Calculus. In: Proc. of LICS. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 59–68, doi:10.1109/LICS.2006.39.
  45. J. Parrow (2008): Expressiveness of Process Algebras. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 209, pp. 173–186, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.04.011.
  46. J. Parrow (2014): General conditions for full abstraction. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 26(4), pp. 655–657, doi:10.1017/S0960129514000280.
  47. J. Parrow & P. Sjödin (1992): Multiway Synchronization Verified with Coupled Simulation. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 630, pp. 518–533, doi:10.1007/BFb0084813.
  48. J.A. Perez (2009): Higher-Order Concurrency: Expressiveness and Decidability Results. Ph.d. thesis. University of Bologna.
  49. K. Peters (2012): Translational Expressiveness. TU Berlin. Available at http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2012/3749/.
  50. K. Peters & R. van Glabbeek (2015): Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria. In: Proc. of EXPRESS/SOS, EPTCS 190, pp. 46–60, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.190.4.
  51. K. Peters & R. van Glabbeek (2015): Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria for Process Calculi. Archive of Formal Proofs. http://isa-afp.org/entries/Encodability_Process_Calculi.shtml.
  52. K. Peters & U. Nestmann (2012): Is It a ``Good'' Encoding of Mixed Choice?. In: Proc. of FoSSaCS, LNCS 7213, pp. 210–224, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28729-9_14.
  53. K. Peters, U. Nestmann & U. Goltz (2013): On Distributability in Process Calculi. In: Proc. of ESOP, LNCS 7792, pp. 310–329, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_18.
  54. C.A. Petri (1962): Kommunikation mit Automaten. Institut für Instrumentelle Mathematik, Bonn.
  55. J.G. Riecke (1991): Fully abstract translations between functional languages. In: Proc. of POPL. ACM, pp. 245–254, doi:10.1145/99583.99617.
  56. D. Sangiorgi (1994): An investigation into functions as processes. In: Proc. of MFPS, LNCS 802, pp. 143–159, doi:10.1007/3-540-58027-1_7.
  57. D. Sangiorgi (2009): On the Origins of Bisimulation and Coinduction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 31(4), pp. 1–15, doi:10.1145/1516507.1516510.
  58. B. Victor & J. Parrow (1996): Constraints as Processes. In: Proc. of CONCUR, LNCS 1119, pp. 389–405, doi:10.1007/3-540-61604-7_66.
  59. M.G. Vigliotti, I. Phillips & C. Palamidessi (2007): Tutorial on separation results in process calculi via leader election problems. Theoretical Computer Science 388(1–3), pp. 267–289, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2007.09.001.
  60. N. Yoshida (1996): Graph Types for Monadic Mobile Processes. In: Proc. of FST&TCS, LNCS 1180, pp. 371–386, doi:10.1007/3-540-62034-6_64.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org