Advertisement

Creating Semantic Representations of Diagrams

  • Mark Minas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1779)

Abstract

Diagrams that serve as a visual input facility for programming environments have to be translated into some kind of semantic description. This paper describes such a method which is based on a specification of the translation process. The translation process starts with a diagram, which is simply represented as a collection of atomic diagram components, and it ends up with some data structure as a semantic representation of the diagram. The specification of the translation process mainly consists of two parts: the specification of spatial relationships between atomic diagram components in terms of their numeric parameters (e.g., position, size), and an attributed hypergraph grammar that describes the concrete diagram syntax as well as the rules for generating the semantic representation.

Keywords

Semantic Representation Semantic Description Function Block Graph Grammar Visual Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Deutsche Norm DIN EN 61131 Teil 3“Speicherprogrammierbare Steuerungen —Programmiersprachen”. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 1994. in German.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Andries, G. Engels, and J. Rekers. How to represent a visual specification. In K. Marriott and B. Meyer, editors, Visual Language Theory, pages 245–260. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bardohl, M. Minas, A. Schürr, and G. Taentzer. Application of graph transformation to visual languages. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume II: Applications, Languages and Tools, pages 105–180. World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Bunke. Attributed programmed graph grammars and their application to schematic diagram interpretation. IEEE pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 4(6):574–582, 1982.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Citrin, R. Hall, and B. Zorn. Programming with visual expressions. In VL’95 [22], pages 294–301, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Costagliola, G. Tortora, S. Orefice, and A. D. Lucia. Automatic generation of visual programming environments. IEEE Computer, 28(3):56–66, Mar. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Erwig. Semantics of visual languages. In VL’ 97 [24], pages 304–311, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Göttler. Attributed graph grammars for graphics. In H. Ehrig, M. Nagl, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, volume 153 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 130–142, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Haarslev. Formal semantics of visual languages using spatial reasoning. In VL’95 [22], pages 156–163, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D._E. Knuth. Semantics of context-free languages. Mathematical Systems Theory, 2(2):127–145, 1968. Errata 5:1 (1971) 95–96.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Mehlhorn. Data Structures and Algorithms 3, Multi-dimensional Searching and Computational Geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Minas. Diagram editing with hypergraph parser support. In VL’97 [24], pages 230–237, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Minas. Hypergraphs as a uniform diagram representation model. In Preliminary Proc. 6th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Graph Transformations (TAGT’98), Paderborn, Germany, pages 24–31. University of Paderborn, Technical Report tr-ri-98-201, Nov. 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Minas and G. Viehstaedt. DiaGen: A generator for diagram editors providing direct manipulation and execution of diagrams. In VL’95 [22], pages 203–210.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Minas and G. Viehstaedt. Specification of diagram editors providing layout adjustment with minimal change. In VL’93 [20], pages 324–329.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Neumann, E. E. Grötsch, C. Lubkoll, and R. Simon. SPS-Standard: IEC 1131. Oldenbourg, 1995. in German.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Rekers and A. Schürr. A graph based framework for the implementation of visual environments. In VL’96 [23], pages 148–155, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Schürr. Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In Proc. of the 20th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, number 904 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 151–163, Berlin, 1994. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Viehstaedt and M. Minas. Interaction in really graphical user interfaces. In VL’94 [21], pages 270–277.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    1993 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages, Bergen, Norway. IEEE Computer Society Press, Aug. 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    1994 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages, St. Louis, Missouri. IEEE Computer Society Press, Oct. 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    1995 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages (VL’95), Darmstadt, Germany. IEEE Computer Society Press, Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    1996 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages (VL’96), Boulder, Colorado. IEEE Computer Society Press, Sept. 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    1997 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages (VL’97), Capri, Italy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Wang and H. Zeevat. A syntax directed approach to picture semantics. In K. Marriott and B. Meyer, editors, Visual Language Theory, pages 307–324. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Minas
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für ProgrammiersprachenUniversität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations