From: Scott Woods (scottw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-08 23:53:42
> "A category is given by two pieces of data: a class of objects and, for
> two objects X and Y, a set of morphisms from X to Y."
> What I was trying to suggest is that the objects in the category are
> and the set of morphisms defined for any two FSM's X and Y is a concept
> needs to be checked. Speaking as a layman, and not a discrete math
> at first glimpse it would seem reasonable to think that the various
> of morphism might provide us with a nomenclature for describing the set(s)
> of inter-FSM event exchanges that a protocol could legally define without
> violating the semantics of any of the FSM objects in the category.
Interesting. With a minimal understanding of discrete math theory (read
zip) am concerned that I am about to say something stupid but did have 2
to offer anyway.
1) With low uptake of FSM approach to coding - adding grouping and
Think I can see the same light and with a childhood fear of the dark would
probably stumble in the same direction. The end of the tunnel could be a
2) Having worked on multiple implementations of several protocols one
delayed revelation went something like this. If you are required to
on 4 hardware devices from 4 different vendors then you will produce 4
implementations. Targeting a set of common semantics is somewhat "flawed".
FSM terms an implementation of a protocol may have some transitions missing.
In practice there are specifics about a device or even the implementation by
telco (yep, implementations of ITU standards on PSTNs vary) that mean a full
implementation is impossible. Have you ever dealt with minutely varying
of mail servers (all fully POP3 or IMAP4 conformant)? Anyhow my point is;
your goal of defining permissible semantics, will there be the latitude to
previously described circumstances?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk