The Way We Were: Structural Operational Semantics Research in Perspective

This position paper on the (meta-)theory of Structural Operational Semantic (SOS) is motivated by the following two questions: (1) Is the (meta-)theory of SOS dying out as a research field? (2) If so, is it possible to rejuvenate this field with a redefined purpose? In this article, we will consider possible answers to those questions by first analysing the history of the EXPRESS/SOS workshops and the data concerning the authors and the presentations featured in the editions of those workshops as well as their subject matters. The results of our quantitative and qualitative analyses all indicate a diminishing interest in the theory of SOS as a field of research. Even though `all good things must come to an end', we strive to finish this position paper on an upbeat note by addressing our second motivating question with some optimism. To this end, we use our personal reflections and an analysis of recent trends in two of the flagship conferences in the field of Programming Languages (namely POPL and PDLI) to draw some conclusions on possible future directions that may rejuvenate research on the (meta-)theory of SOS. We hope that our musings will entice members of the research community to breathe new life into a field of research that has been kind to three of the authors of this article.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS2023, arXiv:2309.0578

Processes, Systems \& Tests: Defining Contextual Equivalences

In this position paper, we would like to offer and defend a new template to study equivalences between programs -- in the particular framework of process algebras for concurrent computation.We believe that our layered model of development will clarify the distinction that is too often left implicit between the tasks and duties of the programmer and of the tester. It will also enlighten pre-existing issues that have been running across process algebras as diverse as the calculus of communicating systems, the $\pi$-calculus -- also in its distributed version -- or mobile ambients.Our distinction starts by subdividing the notion of process itself in three conceptually separated entities, that we call \emph{Processes}, \emph{Systems} and \emph{Tests}.While the role of what can be observed and the subtleties in the definitions of congruences have been intensively studied, the fact that \emph{not every process can be tested}, and that \emph{the tester should have access to a different set of tools than the programmer} is curiously left out, or at least not often formally discussed.We argue that this blind spot comes from the under-specification of contexts -- environments in which comparisons takes place -- that play multiple distinct roles but supposedly always \enquote{stay the same}.We illustrate our statement with a simple Java example, the \enquote{usual} concurrent languages, but also back it up with $\lambda$-calculus and existing implementations of concurrent languages as well

Revisiting sequential composition in process calculi

International audienceThe article reviews the various ways sequential composition is defined in traditional process calculi, and shows that such definitions are not optimal, thus limiting the dissemination of concurrency theory ideas among computer scientists. An alternative approach is proposed, based on a symmetric binary operator and write-many variables. This approach, which generalizes traditional process calculi, has been used to define the new LNT language implemented in the CADP toolbox. Feedback gained from university lectures and real-life case studies shows a high acceptance by computer-science students and industry engineers