1. Samson Abramsky (1994): Proofs as Processes. Theoretical Computer Science 135, pp. 5–9, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)00103-0.
  2. Roberto M. Amadio, Ilaria Castellani & Davide Sangiorgi (1998): On Bisimulation for the Asynchronous pi-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 195(2), pp. 291–324, doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(97)00223-5.
  3. Andrew Barber (1996): Dual Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-96-347. Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Sciences, University if Edinburgh.
  4. Iliano Cervesato, Nancy Durgin, Max Kanovich & Andre Scedrov (2000): Interpreting Strands in Linear Logic. In: H. Veith, N. Heintze & E. Clark: 2000 Workshop on Formal Methods and Computer Security, Chicago, IL.
  5. Iliano Cervesato, Frank Pfenning, David Walker & Kevin Watkins (2002): A Concurrent Logical Framework II: Examples and Applications. Technical Report CMU-CS-2002-002. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  6. Iliano Cervesato & Andre Scedrov (2009): Relating state-based and process-based concurrency through linear logic. Information and Computation 207, pp. 1044–1077, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2008.11.006.
  7. Yuxin Deng & Matthew Hennessy (2011): On the Semantics of Markov Automata. In: Proc. ICALP'11. Springer-Verlag LNCS 6756, pp. 307–318, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22012-8_24.
  8. Yuxin Deng, Robert J. Simmons & Iliano Cervesato (2011): Relating Reasoning Methodologies in Linear Logic and Process Algebra. Technical Report CMU-CS-11-145. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
  9. Cédric Fournet & Georges Gonthier (2005): A hierarchy of equivalences for asynchronous calculi. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 63(1), pp. 131–173, doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2004.01.006.
  10. Jean-Yves Girard (1987): Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, pp. 1–102, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(87)90045-4.
  11. C.A.R. Hoare (1985): Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, doi:10.1145/359576.359585.
  12. Kohei Honda & Mario Tokoro (1992): On Asynchronous Communication Semantics. In: M. Tokoro, O. Nierstrasz & P. Wegner: Proc. of ECOOP'91 Workshop on Object-Based Concurrent Computing. Springer-Verlag LNCS 612, pp. 21–51, doi:10.1007/3-540-55613-3_2.
  13. Patrick Lincoln & Vijay Saraswat (1991): Proofs as concurrent processes: A logical interpretation for concurrent constraint programming. Technical Report. Systems Sciences Laboratory, Xerox PARC.
  14. Raymond McDowell, Dale Miller & Catuscia Palamidessi (2003): Encoding transition systems in sequent calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 294(3), pp. 411–437, doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00168-2.
  15. Dale Miller (1992): The π-Calculus as a Theory in Linear Logic: Preliminary Results. In: E. Lamma & P. Mello: Proc. ELP. Springer-Verlag LNCS 660, pp. 242–265.
  16. Robin Milner (1989): Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall.
  17. Julian Rathke & Pawel Sobocinski (2008): Deriving Structural Labelled Transitions for Mobile Ambients. In: Proc. CONCUR'08. Springer-Verlag LNCS 5201, pp. 462–476, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85361-9_36.
  18. Alwen Tiu & Dale Miller (2004): A Proof Search Specification of the π-Calculus. In: 3rd Workshop on the Foundations of Global Ubiquitous Computing, ENTCS 138, pp. 79–101, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.05.006.

Comments and questions to:
For website issues: