Weak Adhesive High-Level Replacement Categories and Systems: A Unifying Framework for Graph and Petri Net Transformations

  • Hartmut Ehrig
  • Ulrike Prange
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4060)


Adhesive high-level replacement (HLR) systems have been recently introduced as a new categorical framework for graph tranformation in the double pushout (DPO) approach. They combine the well-known concept of HLR systems with the concept of adhesive categories introduced by Lack and Sobociński.

While graphs, typed graphs, attributed graphs and several other variants of graphs together with corresponding morphisms are adhesive HLR categories, such that the categorical framework of adhesive HLR systems can be applied, this has been claimed also for Petri nets. In this paper we show that this claim is wrong for place/transition nets and algebraic high-level nets, although several results of the theory for adhesive HLR systems are known to be true for the corresponding Petri net transformation systems.

In fact, we are able to define a weaker version of adhesive HLR categories, called weak adhesive HLR categories, which is still sufficient to show all the results known for adhesive HLR systems. This concept includes not only all kinds of graphs mentioned above, but also place/transition nets, algebraic high-level nets and several other kinds of Petri nets. For this reason weak adhesive HLR systems can be seen as a unifying framework for graph and Petri net transformations.


Unify Framework Graph Transformation Graph Grammar Categorical Framework Injective Morphism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Goguen, J.: Discrete-Time Machines in Closed Monoidal Categories. Bull. AMS 78, 777–783 (1972)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehrig, H., Kiermeier, K.D., Kreowski, H., Kühnel, W.: Universal Theory of Automata. Teubner, Stuttgart (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goguen, J., Burstall, R.: Introducing Institutions. In: Clarke, E., Kozen, D. (eds.) Logic of Programs 1983. LNCS, vol. 164, pp. 221–256. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Module Specifications and Constraints. In: EATCS, vol. 21, Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrig, H., Habel, A., Padberg, J., Prange, U.: Adhesive High-Level Replacement Categories and Systems. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 144–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrig, H., Habel, A., Padberg, J., Prange, U.: Adhesive High-Level Replacement Systems: A New Categorical Framework for Graph Transformation. Fundamenta Informaticae (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Habel, A., Kreowski, H.J., Parisi-Presicce, F.: Parallelism and Concurrency in High-Level Replacement Systems. Math. Struct. in Comp. Science 1, 361–404 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lack, S., Sobociński, P.: Adhesive Categories. In: Walukiewicz, I. (ed.) FOSSACS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2987, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lack, S., Sobociński, P.: Adhesive and Quasiadhesive Categories. Theoretical Informatics and Applications 39(3), 511–546 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, H.: Introduction to the Algebraic Theory of Graph Grammars (A Survey). In: Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science and Biology. LNCS, vol. 73, pp. 1–69. Springer, Heidelberg (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padberg, J., Ehrig, H., Ribeiro, L.: Algebraic High-Level Net Transformation Systems. MSCS 2, 217–256 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown, R., Janelidze, G.: Van Kampen Theorems for Categories of Covering Morphisms in Lextensive Categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 119, 255–263 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics. EATCS, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer, J., Montanari, U.: Petri Nets are Monoids. Information and Computation 88(2), 105–155 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Padberg, J.: Abstract Petri Nets: A Uniform Approach and Rule-Based Refinement. PhD thesis, TU Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braatz, B., Ehrig, H., Urbášek, M.: Petri Net Transformations in the Petri Net Baukasten. In: Ehrig, H., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G., Weber, H. (eds.) Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems. LNCS, vol. 2472, pp. 37–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hartmut Ehrig
    • 1
  • Ulrike Prange
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations