Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:14:17.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horizontal and vertical structuring of typed graph transformation systems†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2018

Reiko Heckel ,
Andrea Corradini ,
Hartmut Ehrig  and
Michael Löwe
Reiko Heckel
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich 13 Informatik, Franklinstraße 28/29, D-10587 Berlin, Germany
Andrea Corradini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Informatica, Corso Italia 40, 1-56125 Pisa, Italy
Hartmut Ehrig
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich 13 Informatik, Franklinstraße 28/29, D-10587 Berlin, Germany
Michael Löwe
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin, Fachbereich 13 Informatik, Franklinstraße 28/29, D-10587 Berlin, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a categorical semantics that has been developed recently as a basis, we study composition and refinement as horizontal and vertical structuring techniques for typed graph transformation systems. Composition of graph transformation systems with respect to common subsystems is shown to be compatible with the semantics, i.e., the semantics of the composed system is obtained as the composition of the semantics of the component systems. Moreover, the structure of a composed graph transformation system is preserved during a refinement step in the sense that compatible refinements of the components induce a refinement of the composition. The concepts and results are illustrated by a sample development of a small information system using entity relationship modelling techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , December 1996 , pp. 613 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This work has been partly supported by the ESPRIT Basic Research Working Group no. 7183 ‘Computing by Graph Transformation II’ and by the German DFG project no. Eh65/7-l ‘Structuring and Analysis of Algebraic Graph Transformation Systems’.

References

Chen, P. (1976) The Entity-Relationship model – toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 9-36.Google Scholar
Claßen, I. and Löwe, M. (1995) Scheme evolution in object-oriented models: A graph transformation approach. In: Proc. Workshop on Formal Methods at the ISCE'95, Seattle.Google Scholar
Claßen, I., Löwe, M., Wasserroth, S. and Wortmann, J. (1994) Static and dynamic semantics of E/R models based on algrabraic methods. Integration von semiformalen und formalen Methoden fur die Spezifikation von Softwaresystemen. In: Wolfinger, B. (ed.) Informatik Aktuell, Springer-Verlag 2–9.Google Scholar
Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Lowe, M., Montanari, U. and Padberg, J. (1996a) The category of typed graph grammars and their adjunction with categories of derivations. In: Cung, J., Ehrig, H., Engels, G. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science, 5th International Workshop, Williamsburg ’94. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1073 56–74.Google Scholar
Corradini, A. and Heckel, R. (1995) A compositional approach to structuring and refinement of typed graph grammars. Proceedings of SEGRAGRA'95. In: Corradini, A. and Montanari, U. (eds.) Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 2 (http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume2.html)Google Scholar
Corradini, A., Montanari, U. and Rossi, F. (1996b) Graph processes Fundamenta Informaticae 26 241–256.Google Scholar
Corradini, A., Montanari, U., Rossi, E, Ehrig, H., Heckel, R. and Löwe, M. (1996c) Algebraic approaches to graph transformation I: Basic concepts and double pushout approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Graph Grammars, Volume 1: Foundations, World Scientific (to appear).Google Scholar
Ehrig, H. (1979) Introduction to the algebraic theory of graph grammars. In: Claus, V., Ehrig, H. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) 1st Graph Grammar Workshop. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 73 1–69.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H. and Engels, G. (1996) Pragmatic and semantic aspects of a module concept for graph transformation systems. In: Cung, J., Ehrig, H., Engels, G. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science, 5th International Workshop, Williamsburg ‘94. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1073 137–154.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Korff, M., Löwe, M, Ribeiro, L., Wagner, A. and Corradini, A. (1996) Algebraic approaches to graph transformation II: Single pushout approach and comparison with double pushout approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Graph Grammars, Volume 1: Foundations, World Scientific (to appear).Google Scholar
Ehrig, H. and Mahr, B. (1985) Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science 6, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H. and Mahr, B. (1990) Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Module Specifications and Constraints. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science 21, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Pfender, M. and Schneider, H. J. (1973) Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. In: 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory 167-180.Google Scholar
Goguen, J. A. (1991) A categorical manifesto. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1.Google Scholar
Habel, A., Heckel, R. and Taentzer, G. (1996) Graph grammars with negative application condition. Fundamenta Informaticae 26 287–313.Google Scholar
Heckel, R. and Wagner, A. (1995) Ensuring consistency of conditional graph grammars - a constructive approach. Proceedings of SEGRAGRA'95. In: Corradini, A. and Montanari, U. (eds.) Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 2 (http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume2.html)Google Scholar
Janssens, D. (1996) The decomposition of ESM computations. In: Cung, J., Ehrig, H., Engels, G. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and their Applications to Computer Science, 5th International Workshop, Williamsburg ’94. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1073 271–287.Google Scholar
Korff, M. (1996) Generalized graph structure grammars with applications to concurrent object-oriented systems, Ph.D. thesis, TU Berlin.Google Scholar
Kreowski, H.-J. and Kuske, S. (1996) On the interleaving semantics of transformation units - a step into GRACE. In: Cung, J., Ehrig, H., Engels, G. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and their Applications to Computer Science, 5th International Workshop, Williamsburg ‘94. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1073 89–106.Google Scholar
Löwe, M. (1993) Algebraic approach to single-pushout graph transformation. Theoretical Computer Science 109 181–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löwe, M. (1994) Von Graphgrammatiken zu Petrinetzen und zurück. In: Simon, F. (ed.) Tagungsband Alternative Konzepte fur Sprachen und Rechner. Univ. Kiel, FB Informatik 94 (12) 79–82.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1971) Categories for the Working Mathematician, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Meseguer, J. and Montanari, U. (1990) Petri nets are monoids. Information and Computation 88 (2) 105–155.Google Scholar
Montanari, U. (1970) Separable graphs, planar graphs and web grammars. Information and Control 16 243–267.Google Scholar
Padberg, J., Ehrig, H. and Ribeiro, L. (1995) Algebraic high-level net transformation systems. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 5 217–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parisi-Presicce, F. (1996) Transformation of graph grammars. In: Cung, J., Ehrig, H., Engels, G. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and their Applications to Computer Science, 5th International Workshop, Williamsburg ‘94. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1073 428–442.Google Scholar
Pfaltz, J. L. and Rosenfeld, A. (1969) Web grammars. Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 609-619.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, L. (1996) Parallel Composition and Unfolding Semantics of Graph Grammars, Ph.D. thesis, TU Berlin.Google Scholar
Schürr, A. (1991) Progress: A vhl-language based on graph grammars. In: Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) 4th Int. Workshop on Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 532. Google Scholar
Taentzer, G. and Schürr, A. (1995) DIEGO, another step towards a module concept for graph transformation systems. Proceedings of SEGRAGRA'95. In: Corradini, A. and Montanari, U. (eds.) Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 2 (http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume2.html)Google Scholar