A Visual Modeling Framework for Distributed Object Computing

  • Gabriele Taentzer
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 81)


Distributed object computing is a computing paradigm that allows objects to be distributed over a heterogeneous network. Infrastructures help to develop distributed object applications by offering necessary services for distributed computing. Having a comprehensive infrastructure to hand, the development of complex distributed object systems is feasible in principle. Flexibly evolving architectures as well as highly dynamic distributed object structures are key requirements for nowadays distributed solutions. They can hardly be well designed on this level of programming, due to their complexity. A visual modeling framework is presented which offers a more abstract and intuitive approach to the relevant aspects of a distributed object system. In this framework, network and object structures as well as their evolution are visualized in a diagrammatic style, e.g. in UML notation. Semantically, this approach relies on graphs and their transformation, i.e. it has a precise background useful for further reasoning.


distributed object computing visual modeling I/O-automata graph transformation 


  1. Baldan, P. (2000). Modelling concurrent computations: from contextual Petri nets to graph grammars. PhD thesis, University of Pisa. available as technical report, TD-1/00.Google Scholar
  2. Bestuzheva, I. and Rudnev, V. (1990). Timed Petri Nets: Classification and Comparative Anal-ysis. Automation and Remote Control, 51 (10): 1303–1318.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Corradini, A., Montanari, U., and Rossi, E (1996). Graph Processes. Special Issue of Fundamenta Informaticae, 26 (3,4): 241–266.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Corradini, A., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., and Löwe, M. (1997). Algebraic approaches to graph transformation part I: Basic concepts and double pushout approach. In Rozenberg, G., editor, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph transformation, Volume 1: Foundations,pages 163–246. World Scientific.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, I., Koch, M., and Taentzer, G. (2000). Local Views on Distributed Systems and their Communications. In Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., and Rozenberg, G., editors, Theory and Application of Graph Transformations,volume 1764 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pages 164–178. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, I., Koch, M., Taentzer, G., and Volle, V. (1999). Distributed Graph Transformation with Application to Visual Design of Distributed Systems. In Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Montanari, U., and Rozenberg, G., editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 3: Concurrency, Parallelism, and Distribution,pages 269–340. World Scientific.Google Scholar
  7. Heckel, R. and Wagner, A. (1995). Ensuring Consistency of Conditional Graph Grammars — A constructive Approach. Proc. of SEGRAGRA’95 “Graph Rewriting and Computation”, Electronic Notes of TCS, 2. http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entes/volume2.html. Google Scholar
  8. Helouet, L., Jard, C., and Caillaud, B. (2000). An effective equivalence for sets of scenarios represented by HMSCs. In Ehrig, H. and Taentzer, G., editors, Proc. Joint APPLIGRAPH and GETGRATS Workshop on Graph Transformation Systems (GRATRA’00). TU Berlin, FB Informatik, TR 2000–2. Accepted for Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  9. Janssens, D. and Rozenberg, G. (1989). Actor grammars. Mathematical Systems Theory, 22: 75107.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koch, M., Mancini, L., and Parisi-Presicce, E (2000). A Formal Model for Role-Based Access Control using Graph Transformation. In Proc. of the 6th European Symposium on Research in computer Security (ESORIS 2000),volume 1895 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pages 122 — 139. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Kuske, S. (2001). A formal semantics of uml state machines based on structured graph transformation. In Gogolla, M. and Kobryn, C., editors, UML 2001 -The Unified Modeling Language,volume 2185 of LNCS. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Lynch, N. (1996). Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. Lyons, A. (1998). UML for Real-Time Overview. Technical report, ObjecTime Limited.Google Scholar
  14. OMG (2000). UML Version 1. 3.Google Scholar
  15. OMG (2001). CORBA Version 2. 4. 2.Google Scholar
  16. Plump, D. (1995). On termination of graph rewriting. In Proc. Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science,volume 1017 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pages 88 — 100. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Reisig, W. (1998). Elements of Distributed Algorithms: Modelling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Roock, A. (1998). Visuelles Design eines verteilten Filemanagers mit Graphtransformation. Master’s thesis, TU Berlin. W3C (2001). SOAP 1.1 Specification.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriele Taentzer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations