  Behavioural type systems ensure more than the usual safety guarantees of
static analysis. They are based on the idea of "types-as-processes", providing
dedicated type algebras for particular properties, ranging from protocol
compatibility to race-freedom, lock-freedom, or even responsiveness. Two
successful, although rather different, approaches, are session types and
process types. The former allows to specify and verify (distributed)
communication protocols using specific type (proof) systems; the latter allows
to infer from a system specification a process abstraction on which it is
simpler to verify properties, using a generic type (proof) system. What is the
relationship between these approaches? Can the generic one subsume the specific
one? At what price? And can the former be used as a compiler for the latter?
The work presented herein is a step towards answers to such questions.
Concretely, we define a stepwise encoding of a pi-calculus with sessions and
session types (the system of Gay and Hole) into a pi-calculus with process
types (the Generic Type System of Igarashi and Kobayashi). We encode session
type environments, polarities (which distinguish session channels end-points),
and labelled sums. We show forward and reverse operational correspondences for
the encodings, as well as typing correspondences. To faithfully encode session
subtyping in process types subtyping, one needs to add to the target language
record constructors and new subtyping rules. In conclusion, the programming
convenience of session types as protocol abstractions can be combined with the
simplicity and power of the pi-calculus, taking advantage in particular of the
framework provided by the Generic Type System.
