The specification language Z has been designed to describe data and functional aspects of systems, but it does not define a semantics for specifications in a distributed setting. Process algebras, on the other hand, concentrate on the behaviour of communicating agents. For this reason the combination of Z with a process algebra recently got a lot of attention. In this paper we summarise and categorise the different approaches and identify pitfalls and shortcomings in existing combinations. Thereby we give an overview over the many possible answers to the question: ‘What is the behavioural semantics of a Z specification?’
Z is for data and functional aspects, But not about communivcation and synchronization in ditributed system/multiprocess systems. has no behavioural semantics. Process algebras like CSP are for communication. But are not good at defining cpmlex data aspects of system. Z is popular, successful and has active user group. CCS, CSP(Combining Z and CSP by Fischer,Non-inference through determanism by , roscoe , woodcock ) has been combined with Z and CSP with Object -Z(CSP-Oz by Fischer,An integratiooon of Object Z and CSP by Smith). Further disscussion about input/output, guards, refinement.
%0 Conference Paper
%1 Fischer1998
%A Fischer, Clemens
%B ZUM
%D 1998
%K
%P 5-23
%T How to Combine Z with Process Algebra
%X The specification language Z has been designed to describe data and functional aspects of systems, but it does not define a semantics for specifications in a distributed setting. Process algebras, on the other hand, concentrate on the behaviour of communicating agents. For this reason the combination of Z with a process algebra recently got a lot of attention. In this paper we summarise and categorise the different approaches and identify pitfalls and shortcomings in existing combinations. Thereby we give an overview over the many possible answers to the question: ‘What is the behavioural semantics of a Z specification?’
@inproceedings{Fischer1998,
abstract = {The specification language Z has been designed to describe data and functional aspects of systems, but it does not define a semantics for specifications in a distributed setting. Process algebras, on the other hand, concentrate on the behaviour of communicating agents. For this reason the combination of Z with a process algebra recently got a lot of attention. In this paper we summarise and categorise the different approaches and identify pitfalls and shortcomings in existing combinations. Thereby we give an overview over the many possible answers to the question: ‘What is the behavioural semantics of a Z specification?’},
added-at = {2010-12-02T00:41:29.000+0100},
author = {Fischer, Clemens},
bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a8e066ad390dc8087112365f2e63b5bb/tasawer},
booktitle = {ZUM},
crossref = {DBLP:conf/zum/1998},
file = {:E\:\\Papers\\Fischr98:PDF},
interhash = {08cd297005781089ec95aa19dd1a0f8f},
intrahash = {a8e066ad390dc8087112365f2e63b5bb},
keywords = {},
pages = {5-23},
review = {Z is for data and functional aspects, But not about communivcation and synchronization in ditributed system/multiprocess systems. has no behavioural semantics. Process algebras like CSP are for communication. But are not good at defining cpmlex data aspects of system. Z is popular, successful and has active user group. CCS, CSP(Combining Z and CSP by Fischer,Non-inference through determanism by , roscoe , woodcock ) has been combined with Z and CSP with Object -Z(CSP-Oz by Fischer,An integratiooon of Object Z and CSP by Smith). Further disscussion about input/output, guards, refinement.},
timestamp = {2010-12-02T00:41:29.000+0100},
title = {How to Combine Z with Process Algebra},
year = 1998
}