P. Bottoni, A. Schürr, and G. Taentzer. Efficient Parsing of Visual Languages based on Critical Pair Analysis and Contextual Layered Graph Transformation. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, September 2000. Long version available as technical report SI-2000-06, University of Rom.
A. Corradini, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Graph processes. In Fundamenta Informaticae
, volume 26(3,4), pages 241–266, 1996.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
H. Ehrig. Embedding theorems in the algebraic theory of graph grammars. In LNCS
56, pages 245–255. Springer, 1977.Google Scholar
H. Ehrig. Introduction to the Algebraic Theory of Graph Grammars (A Survey). In Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science and Biology
. Springer LNCS 73, 1979.Google Scholar
H. Ehrig, M. Pfender, and H.J. Schneider. Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. In 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pages 167–180. IEEE, 1973.
G. Engels, R. Heckel, and J. M. Küster. Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta-model. In M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, editors, Proc. 4th Intl. Conference on The Unified Modeling Language (UML’ 02), Toronto, Canada, October, 2001
, volume 2185 of LNCS
, pages 272–287. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
C. Ermel, M. Rudolf, and G. Taentzer. The AGG-Approach: Language and Tool Environment. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 2: Applications, Languages and Tools
, pages 551–603. World Scientific, 1999. See also http://tfs.cs.tu/berlin.de/agg
Formal Systems Europe (Ltd). Failures-Divergence-Refinement: FDR2 User Manual, 1997.
J. H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and G. Taentzer. Detection of Conflicting Functional Requirements in a Use Case-Driven Approach. In Proc. 24th Intl. Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, FL, 2002. ACM/IEEE Computer Society.
R. Heckel, J.M. Küster, and G. Taentzer. Towards automatic translation of UML models into semantic domains. In H.-J. Kreowski, editor, Proc. ETAPS’02 Workshop on Application of Graph Transformation (AGT’02), Grenoble, France, April 2002.
C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.
H.-J. Kreowski. Manipulation von Graphmanipulationen. PhD thesis, FB13, 1978.
S. Kuske. A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation. In M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, editors, Proc. UML 2001, Toronto, Kanada
, volume 2185 of LNCS
. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
M. Löwe, M. Korff, and A. Wagner. An algebraic framework for the transformation of attributed graphs. In Term Graph Rewriting: Theory and Practice, pages 185–199. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1993.
M. H. A. Newman. On theories with a combinatorial definition of’ equivalence’. In Annals of Mathematics
, 43(2), pages 223–243, 1942.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
J. Padberg and G. Taentzer. Embedding of derivations in high-level replacement systems. Technical Report 93/9, Technical University of Berlin, Computer Science Department, 1993.
D. Plump. Hypergraph Rewriting: Critical Pairs and Undecidability of Confluence. In M.R Sleep, M.J. Plasmeijer, and M. C.J.D. van Eekelen, editors, Term Graph Rewriting, pages 201–214. Wiley, 1993.
D. Plump. Term graph rewriting. In G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 2: Applications, Languages, and Tools, pages 3–62. World Scientific, 1999.
D. Varro, G. Varro, and A. Pataricza. Designing the Automatic Transformation of Visual Languages. Science of Computer Programming, 44(2), 2002.