copycat82/83 never cites Da80, although most of it imitates Da80, in formalism. Even quite a few similarities exist with the text of Da80, here and there. It does appear that copycat82 takes the Da80 formal ideas as hooks, to cut-and-paste the other prior art. This means E-nets, and Petri nets, were necessarily the wish-list items.
Da80 is in one of the flagship journals of the communications field (IEEE Trans. on Communications), two years before copycat82 was published.
Da80 had introduced the X-transition of E-nets to Petri nets. Although, copycat82 attempts to imitate the SARA/UCLA looks (quite similar to E-nets, any way), the attempt is only a total mess, as it leads to the macro-gate problems of copycat82.
Why the "control variables" vs. "other places," except (attempt) to imitate Da80?
Da80 reflects about the global versus local. Next, copycat82 copies it, except an ignorant attempt to switch words about "time" in place of nondeterminism. This is part of its plagiarism, about the global-model.
Da80 deals at length, with interfaces among processes/nodes. cf. section 3.3 of copycat82.
Da80 studies an E-net X-transition with (P,Q,F,G, and extras), whereas copycat82 macros/"component"s external tuple is (P,Q,F,G,D,T). Those extras of Da80-tuples let study the phases of an X-transition, more precisely. i.e: Da80 has more, although it was published two years before copycat82.
The "D" is not an extra of copycat82. It corresponds to the token-attributes, and to the environment-variables.
The "T" is a vague duality of copycat82. The Da80 section IV.F, refers to hybrid-models. This is right after section IV.E, where Da80 formalizes the X-transition of E-nets. Therefore, I would interpret it as a reflection about the procedures of an X-transition, but it appears that, copycat82 took it as a "tip" to cut-and-paste yet another paper (a tutorial paper). It is about "ADTs" - with problems of ignorance of copycat82. Where do they exist? How would we resolve the preferences of a resolution-procedure, versus the restriction-specifications of an ADT?
And, why the similarity to such an extent? e.g: Why would a transition-procedure ("data-transfer specification") be denoted with the same letter Gi both in Da80, and copycat82?
copycat82 is self-contradictory. Transitions start as soon as enabled, as E-nets do. So next, what could it mean when copycat82 also claims that in later simulation studies, time-Petri-nets could be adopted? This suggests yet further imitation, and it is self-contradictory, because if you start the macro-transitions "as soon as enabled, and remove tokens from the input locations immediately" as the standard behavior, next, what is left for a time-Petri net to tell? The copycat82 attempt/claim to merge the two, is degenerate, with Min=Max=0.
The X-transition is for evaluating a (resolution) procedure. With a verifier, this may reduce the explored state-space (i.e: prune untakeable paths). Da80 formalizes/maps a hybrid net-reduction approach (reduce a net to a procedure), through a distinction between the Petri net events and internal events (basic automaton vs. context automaton). On preference, more of the internal events may get verified with the reachability-test, if a resolution-procedure is implemented in net, basic automaton (an FSA, or the Petri net). Or, the vice versa, to reduce the net. Next, copycat82 is worse than trivial, because copycat82 is not really verifiable "unless" with an extreme (junk) complexity.
Da80 is for networked systems. Its example-use is for the 'C'yclades transport protocol - the capital 'C'. By comparison, 'c'opycat82 is the small-case 'c', as that 'c' may mean 'c'harge d'affaires (the 2nd def. in Macmillan contemporary dictionary).
charge d'affaires ... 2. formerly, diplomatic representative sent by his country to a government to which a diplomat of higher standing, as an ambassador, is not sent.
copycat82 attempts to invoke an illusion that it studies the (lesser-studied) areas of a distributed/networked system - i.e: the application, and operating systems layers, but then, does not deal with any of the difficulties of those layers, either. i.e: copycat82 ignores the legacy before it (hardware system, network layers, etc.), but without adding any new capabilities, either. As such, it is only less-capable, never more.
Therefore, Da80 is important, for our proof of plagiarism, as either the very source, and/or as a pointer to what already existed, two years before copycat82 - upon which a new Ph.D. nominee, was expected to improve, instead of degenerate it.