<p>There is not one right model of computation that works at all levels of abstraction.</p>
<p>You already see this when you compare <span class="math-container">$\pi$</span>-calculus with Petri-nets: <span class="math-container">$\pi$</span> is based on binary interation, while Petri-nets can synchronise <span class="math-container">$n$</span> parties atomically for all <span class="math-container">$n$</span>. It is known that general <span class="math-container">$n$</span>-ary synchronisation cannot be reduced (simplifying a bit) in a compositional way to binary. synchronisation</p>
<p>I think Milner developed bigraphs, in part in reaction to <em>spatial calculi</em> like the Ambient Calculus, and Nomadic Pict. Spatially located computation can also not be reduced  (simplifying a bit) in a compositional way to <span class="math-container">$\pi$</span>-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.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-02T17:56:26.140Z
2023-05-05T10:23:15.803Z
2023-05-05T10:23:15.803Z
Martin Berger
<p>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.</p>
<p>If there are none, then what is the advantage of using the latter over Petri nets or pi-calculus?</p>

<application-of-theory><formal-modeling>
What are advantages of bigraphs?
zajer
# What are advantages of bigraphs?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-02)

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?

**Tags:** application-of-theory, formal-modeling

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-05-02. Score: 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.


---

