Graph Transformation with Time: Causality and Logical Clocks

  • Szilvia Gyapay
  • Reiko Heckel
  • Dániel Varró
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2505)


Following TER nets, an approach to the modelling of time in high-level Petri nets, we propose a model of time within (attributed) graph transformation systems where logical clocks are represented as distinguished node attributes. Corresponding axioms for the time model in TER nets are generalised to graph transformation systems and semantic variations are discussed. They are summarised by a general theorem ensuring the consistency of temporal order and casual dependencies.

The resulting notions of typed graph transformation with time specialise the algebraic double-pushout (DPO) approach to typed graph transformation. In particular, the concurrency theory of the DPO approach can be used in the transfer of the basic theory of TER nets.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Baldan. Modelling Concurrent Computations: from Contextual Petri Nets to Graph Grammars. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Universitá di Pisa, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Baldan, A. Corradini, H. Ehrig, M. Löwe, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Concurrent semantics of algebraic graph transformation. In H. Ehrig, H.-J. Kreowski, U. Montanari, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 3: Concurrency and Distribution, pages 107–188. World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Baresi, M. Pezzé, and G. Taentzer, editors. Proc. ICALP 2001 Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, Heraklion, Greece, Electronic Notes in TCS. Elsevier Science, July 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Corradini and R. Heckel, editors. Proc. ICALP 2000 Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, Geneva, Switzerland, July 2000. Carleton Scientific.
  5. 5.
    A. Corradini and U. Montanari. Specification of Concurrent Systems: from Petri Nets to Graph Grammars. In Quality of Communication-Based Systems, pages 35–52. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Corradini, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Graph processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, 26(3,4):241–266, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Engels, J.H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and St. Sauer. Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In A. Evans, S. Kent, and B. Selic, editors, Proc. UML 2000, York, UK, volume 1939 of LNCS, pages 323–337. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Ehrig, J. Padberg, and L. Ribeiro. Algebraic high-level nets: Petri nets revisited. In Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, pages 188–206, Caldes de Malavella, Spain, 1994. Springer Verlag. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 785.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Gyapay and R. Heckel. Towards graph transformation with time. In Proc. ET APS’02 Workshop on Application of Graph Transformation, Grenoble, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Ghezzi, D. Mandrioli, S. Morasca, and Pezzè. A unified high-level petri net formalism for time-critical systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(2):160–172, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and S. Sauer. Towards dynamic meta modeling of UML extensions: An extensible semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In M. Minas and A. Schürr, editors, Symposium on Visual Languages and Formal Methods, IEEE Symposia on Human Computer Interaction (HCI 2001), Stresa, Italy, Los Alamitos, CA, September 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. E. Hrischuk. A Model Making Automation Process (MMAP) using a graph grammar formalism. In Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, 6th International Workshop, TAGT’98, Paderborn, Germany, Selected Papers, volume 1764 of LNCS, pages 442–454. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H.-J. Kreowski. Manipulation von Graphmanipulationen. PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Dep. of Comp. Sci., 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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, pages 241–256. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Lamport. Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7), July 1978.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Löwe, M. Korff, and A. Wagner. An algebraic framework for the transformation of attributed graphs. In M. R. Sleep, M. J. Plasmeijer, and M.C. van Eekelen, editors, Term Graph Rewriting: Theory and Practice, chapter 14, pages 185–199. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Ribeiro. Parallel Composition and Unfolding Semantics of Graph Grammars. PhD thesis, TU Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szilvia Gyapay
    • 1
  • Reiko Heckel
    • 2
  • Dániel Varró
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Measurement and Information SystemsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Dept. of Math. and Comp. ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations