I would like to know if there are any limitations of frameworks such as Petri nets (with its extensions) or pi-calculus that bigraphs developed by Robin Milner do not have.

If there are none, then what is the advantage of using the latter over Petri nets or pi-calculus?


1 Answer 1


There is not one right model of computation that works at all levels of abstraction.

You already see this when you compare $\pi$-calculus with Petri-nets: $\pi$ is based on binary interation, while Petri-nets can synchronise $n$ parties atomically for all $n$. It is known that general $n$-ary synchronisation cannot be reduced (simplifying a bit) in a compositional way to binary. synchronisation

I think Milner developed bigraphs, in part in reaction to spatial calculi like the Ambient Calculus, and Nomadic Pict. Spatially located computation can also not be reduced (simplifying a bit) in a compositional way to $\pi$-calculus-like interaction. Bigraphs are a natural and flexible approach to modelling (changing and unchanging) linking structure, including location. The hope has been that a lot of the technology developed for process calculi lifts naturally to those more general setting.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.