skip to main content
10.1145/298151.298229acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

On the semantics of tuple-based coordination models

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 February 1999Publication History
First page image

References

  1. 1.F. Arbab. The IWIM model for coordination of concurrent activities. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin. editors, Coordination Languages and Models, volume 1061 of LNC$, pages 34-56. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. Tile concurrent language, Shared Prolog. A CM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1), January 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.N. Busi, R. Gorrieri, and G. Zavattaro. On Turing equivalence of Linda coordination primitives. Technical Report UBLCS-97-5, Laboratory of Computer Science, University of Bologna, May 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. How to write parallel programs: a guide to the perplexed. A CM Computing Surreys, 21(3):323-357, September 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Tuple analysis and partial evaluation strategies in the Linda precompiler. In D. Gelernter, A. Nicolau, and D. Padua, editors, Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, Research .klonographs in Parallel and Distributed Computing, pages 114-125. NIIT Press, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. A foundation for advanced compile-time analysis of Linda programs. In Languages and Compilers Jot Parallel Computing, volume 589 of L.VCS, pages 389-404. Springer-Verlag, 199 i. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Linda and message passing: Wha~ have we learned? Technical Report vAL~U/r>cS/aR-se4, Yale University, August 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.P. Ciancarini. Distributed programming with logic triple spaces. New Generation Computing, 12, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.P. Ciancarini, K.K.lensen, and D. Yankelevich. On the operational semantics ,ff a coordination language. In P. ('iancarini, O. Nierstrasz, and A. Yonezawa, editol~. Ohject-Sa,ed Models and Languages .for Concurrent $yste,~s. volume 924 of LNC$, pages 77-106. Springer-Verlag, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.P. Ciancarini. A. K,m,-he. R. Tolksdo,'f, and F. \'itali. PageS- pace: An architecture to coordinate distributed applications on the Web. Computer Networks and ISDN S.~stems, 28{7- 11 ):941-9.52, December 19~. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.R. Englemore and T. Morgan, editors. Blackboard Stlstems. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.D. Gelernter. Generative communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(1), January 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.D. Gelernter and N. Carriero. Coordination languages and their significance. Communications o`f the A CM, 35(2):97- 107, February 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.D. Gelernter and L. Zuck. On what Linda is: Formal description of Linda as a reactive system. In Coordination Languages and Models, volume t282 of LNC$. pages 187- 204. Springer-Verlag, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.IBM. T spaces, 1998. http://ww~.almaden.ibm.com/ TSpaces.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.S. Matsuoka and S. Kawai. Using tuple-space communication in distributed object-oriented architectures. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems. Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), volume 23:11 of ACM $igplan Notices, pages 276-284, November 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17.R. Milner, A Calculus .{or Communicating Systems, volume 92 of LNCS. Springer-Veriag, 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.N. Minsky and J. Leichter. Law-governed Linda as a coordination model. In Object-Based Models and Languages, volume 924 of LNCS, pages 125-145. Springer-Verlag, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.A. Omicini, E. Denti, and A. Natali. Agent coordination and control through logic theories. In Topics in Artificial Intelligence, volume 992 of LNA{, pages 439-450. Springer- Verlag, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.A. Omicini and F. Zambonelli. Tuple centres for the coordination of lnternet agents. In Proceedings o.{ the 1999 A CM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '99), San Antonio, Texas, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.G.A. Papadopoulos and F. Arbab. Coordination models and languages. A dvance~ in Computers, 46(The Engineering of Large Systems), August 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.G. Plotkin. A structural ~pproach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, CS Department, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.A.I.T. Rowstron. Bulk Primitives in Linda Run. Time Systems. PhD thesis, The University of York, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.Scientific Computing Associates, Inc., New Haven, CT, USA. C-Linda Reference Manual, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.The JavaSpacesTM specification. Technical report, Sun Microsystems, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista, Sweden. SIC- Stus Prolog Library, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.P. Wegner. Coordination as constrained interaction. In P. Ciancarini and C. Hankin, editors, Coordination Languages and Models, volume 1061 of LNCS, pages 28-33. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 28.P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than computing. Communications off the ACM, 40(5):80--91. May 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On the semantics of tuple-based coordination models

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SAC '99: Proceedings of the 1999 ACM symposium on Applied computing
            February 1999
            635 pages
            ISBN:1581130864
            DOI:10.1145/298151

            Copyright © 1999 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 28 February 1999

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader