References

  1. P. Baldan & S. Crafa (2010): A Logic for True Concurrency. In: CONCUR 2010, LNCS 6269. Springer, pp. 147–161, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15375-4_11.
  2. D. de Frutos, C. Gregorio & M. Palomino (2009): On the unification of process semantics: equational semantics. ENTCS 249, pp. 243–267, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2009.07.093.
  3. D. de Frutos, C. Gregorio & M. Palomino (2009): On the unification of process semantics: observational semantics. In: SOFSEM 2009, LNCS 5404. Springer, pp. 279–290, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-95891-8_27.
  4. D. de Frutos-Escrig & C. Gregorio-Rodr\'ıguez (2008): Universal Coinductive Characterisations of Process Semantics. In: IFIP TCS 2008, pp. 397–412, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09680-3_27.
  5. R. J. van Glabbeek (1993): The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum II. In: CONCUR 1993, LNCS 715. Springer, pp. 66–81, doi:10.1007/3-540-57208-2_6.
  6. R.J. van Glabbeek (2001): The linear time-branching time spectrum I: the semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: J.A. Bergstra, A. Ponse & S.A. Smolka: Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, pp. 3–99.
  7. J. Gutierrez (2009): Logics and Bisimulation Games for Concurrency, Causality and Conflict. In: FOSSACS 2009, LNCS 5504. Springer, pp. 48–62, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00596-1_5.
  8. M. Hennessy & R. Milner (1985): Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. Journal of the ACM 32, pp. 137–161, doi:10.1145/2455.2460.
  9. G. Lüttgen & W. Vogler (2009): Safe Reasoning with Logic LTS. In: SOFSEM 2009, LNCS 5404. Springer, pp. 376–387, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-95891-8_35.
  10. G. Lüttgen & W. Vogler (2010): Ready simulation for concurrency: It's logical!. Inf. Comput. 208(7), pp. 845–867, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2010.02.001.
  11. A. W. Roscoe (2009): Revivals, stuckness and the hierarchy of CSP models. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 78(3), pp. 163–190, doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2008.10.002.

Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org