Algebraic approach to graph transformation based on single pushout derivations

  • M. Löwe
  • H. Ehrig
Graph Grammars
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 484)


The Berlin approach to graph transformation, which uses double pushout derivations in the category of graphs and total graph morphisms, is modified using single pushout derivations in the category of graphs and partial graph morphisms. It is shown that the single pushout approach generalizes the classical approach in the sense that all double pushout derivations correspond to single pushout transformations but not vice versa.

The chances which lie in the extended expressive power are exhibited in the following. We show that some complex proofs within the framework of double pushout derivations become much simpler in the new context. Moreover, the simple derivation structure allows to consider asynchronous derivations which might provide an adequate model for distributed computations.

Finally, the approach is generalized in order to be applicable to more general algebraic structures. We characterize these so-called graph structures as categories of algebras w.r.t. signatures containing unary operator symbols only. Many representations of graphs and hypergraphs known from the literature turn out to be special graph structures such that the theoretical framework introduced in this paper can be applied to all of those objects.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6. References

  1. [BFH 87]
    P. Boehm, H. Fonio, A. Habel: Amalgamation of Graph Transformation: A Synchronization Mechanisms, in: JCSS 34, 307–408 (1987).Google Scholar
  2. [DM 87]
    P. Degano, U. Montanari: A Model of Distributed Systems Based on Graph Rewriting, in: Journal of the ACM 34 (2), 411–449 (1987).Google Scholar
  3. [EBHL 88]
    H. Ehrig, P. Boehm, U. Hummert, M. Löwe: Distributed Parallelism of Graph Transformations, in: Graph-Theoretical Concepts in Computer Science WG'87, Springer, LNCS 314, 1–19 (1988).Google Scholar
  4. [EH 85]
    H. Ehrig, A. Habel: Graph Grammars with Application Conditions, in: G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa (eds.): The Book of L, Springer, 87–100 (1985).Google Scholar
  5. [EH 79]
    H. Ehrig: Introduction to the Algebraic Theory of Graph Grammars (a Survey), in: Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science and Biology, Springer, LNCS 73, 1–69 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. [EHKP 90]
    H. Ehrig, A. Habel, H.-J. Kreowski, F. Parisi-Presicce: High-level Replacement Systems, Techn. Report, submitted to the Fourth International Workshop on Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, Bremen, March 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [EM 85]
    H. Ehrig, B. Mahr: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specifications 1, Springer, Berlin (1985).Google Scholar
  8. [Hab 89]
    A. Habel: Hyperedge Replacement: Grammars and Languages, Dissertation, University Bremen (1989).Google Scholar
  9. [HP 88]
    B. Hoffmann, D. Plump: Jungle Evaluation for Efficient Term Rewriting, in: Algebraic and Logic Programming, Akademie Verlag, Berlin (DDR), 191–203 (1988).Google Scholar
  10. [Ken 87]
    R. Kennaway: On “On Graph Rewriting”, in: Theoretical Computer Science 52, 37–58 (1987).Google Scholar
  11. [KW 87]
    H.-J. Kreowski, A. Wilharm: Is Parallelism already concurrency? Part 2: Non-sequential Processes in Graph Grammars, in: Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, Springer, LNCS 291, 361–377 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. [Löw 89]
    M. Löwe: Implementing Algebraic Specifications by Graph Transformation Systems, Techn. Report 89/26, Technical University of Berlin (1989), to appear in EIK.Google Scholar
  13. [Löw 90]
    M. Löwe: Algebraic Approach to Graph Transformation Based on Single Pushout Derivations, Techn. Report No. 90/5, Technical University of Berlin (1990).Google Scholar
  14. [LW 88]
    M. Löwe, R. Wilhelm: Risiken polizeilicher Datenverarbeitung, in: Schöne neue Computerwelt, Verlag für Studium und Ausbildung in der Elefanten Press, Berlin, 216–252 (1988).Google Scholar
  15. [Pad 82]
    P. Padawitz: Graph Grammars and Operational Semantics, in: Theoretical Computer Science 19, 37–58 (1982).Google Scholar
  16. [Par 89]
    F. Parisi-Presicce: Modular System Design Applying Graph Grammars Techniques, in: ICALP'89, Springer, LNCS 372 (1989).Google Scholar
  17. [PEM 87]
    F. Parisi-Presicce, H. Ehrig, U. Montanari: Graph Rewriting with Unification and Composition, in: Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, Springer, LNCS 291 (1987).Google Scholar
  18. [Rao 84]
    J.C. Raoult: On Graph Rewriting, in: Theoretical Computer Science 32, 1–24 (1984).Google Scholar
  19. [Roz 87]
    G. Rozenberg: An Introduction to the NLC way of rewriting graphs, in: Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, Springer, LNCS 291, 55–66 (1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Löwe
    • 1
  • H. Ehrig
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich Informatik (20)Technische Universität BerlinBerlin 10

Personalised recommendations