Hierarchical Graph Transformation

  • Frank Drewes
  • Berthold Hoffmann
  • Detlef Plump
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1784)

Abstract

We present an approach for the rule-based transformation of hierarchically structured (hyper)graphs. In these graphs, distinguished hyperedges contain graphs that can be hierarchical again. Our framework extends the double-pushout approach from flat to hierarchical graphs. In particular, we show how to construct recursively pushouts and pushout complements of hierarchical graphs and graph morphisms. To further enhance the expressiveness of the approach, we also introduce rule schemata with variables which allow to copy and to remove hierarchical subgraphs.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories. John Wiley, New York, 1990.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Andries, G. Engels, A. Habel, B. Hoffmann, H.-J. Kreowski, S. Kuske, D. Plump, A. Schürr, and G. Taentzer. Graph transformation for specification and programming. Science of Computer Programming, 34:1–54, 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Corradini, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, H. Ehrig, R. Heckel, and M. Löwe. Algebraic approaches to graph transformation — Part I: Basic concepts and double pushout approach. In G. Rozenberg, editor, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 163–245. World Scientific, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Drewes, A. Habel, and H.-J. Kreowski. Hyperedge replacement graph grammars. In G. Rozenberg, editor, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 95–162. World Scientific, Singapore, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Ehrig. Introduction to the algebraic theory of graph grammars. In Proc. Graph-Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science and Biology, volume 73 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–69. Springer-Verlag, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Engels and A. Schürr. Encapsulated hierachical graphs, graph types, and meta types. In A. Corradini and U. Montanari, editors, Proc. Joint COMPUGRAPH/SEMAGRAPH Workshop on Graph Rewriting and Computation, volume 2 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Ermel, M. Rudolf, and G. Taentzer. The AGG approach: Language and environment. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 2, pages 551–603. World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Fradet and D. L. Métayer. Structured Gamma. Science of Computer Programming, 31(2/3):263–289, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Habel. Hyperedge Replacement: Grammars and Languages, volume 643 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Heckel, H. Ehrig, and G. Taentzer. Classification and comparison of module concepts for graph transformation systems. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 669–689. World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Hoffmann. From graph transformation to rule-based programming with diagrams. In M. Nagl and A. Schürr, editors, Proc. Int’l Workshop on Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (Agtive’99), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999. To appear.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Löwe and M. Beyer. AGG — an implementation of algebraic graph rewriting. In C. Kirchner, editor, Proc. Rewriting Techniques and Applications, volume 690 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 451–456, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    F. Parisi-Presicce and G. Piersanti. Multi-level graph grammars. In E. W. Mayr, G. Schmidt, and G. Tinhofer, editors, Graph-Theoretical Concepts in Computer Science (WG’ 94), volume 903 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 51–64, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Plump and A. Habel. Graph unification and matching. In Proc. Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, volume 1073 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 75–89. Springer-Verlag, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. W. Pratt. Pair grammars, graph languages and string-to-graph translations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 5:560–595, 1971.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    H.-J. Schneider. On categorical graph grammars integrating structural transformations and operations on labels. Theoretical Computer Science, 109:257–274, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Drewes
    • 1
  • Berthold Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Detlef Plump
    • 2
  1. 1.Fachbereich Mathematik/InformatikUniversität BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Electrical EngineeringHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations