Advertisement

The equivalence of boundary and confluent graph grammars on graph languages of bounded degree

  • Franz J. Brandenburg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 488)

Abstract

Let B-edNCE and C-edNCE denote the families of graph languages generated by boundary and by confluent edNCE graph grammars, respectively. Boundary means that two nonterminals are never adjacent, and confluent means that rewriting steps are order independent. By definition, boundary graph grammars are confluent, so that B-edNCE \(\subseteq\) C-edNCE. Engelfriet et. al. [8] have shown that this inclusion is proper, in general, using certain graph languages of unbounded degree as a witness. We prove that equality holds on graph languages of bounded degree, i.e., B-edNCEdeg=C-edNCEdeg, where the subscript “deg” refers to graph languages of bounded degree. Thus, for bounded degree, boundary graph grammars are the operator normal form of confluent graph grammars and e.g., the characterization results obtained independently for B-edNCE and C-edNCE can be merged. Our result confirms boundary and confluent graph grammars as notions for context-free graph grammars.

Keywords

graph grammars boundary and confluent graph grammars operator normal form graph languages of bounded degree 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F.J. Brandenburg, “On partially ordered graph grammars”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 291 (1987), 99–111.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F.J. Brandenburg, “On polynomial time graph grammars” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 294 (1988), 227–236Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Courcelle, “An axiomatic definition of context-free rewriting and its applications” Theoret. Comput. Sci. 55 (1987), 141–181.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Courcelle, J. Engelfriet and G. Rozenberg, “Handle-rewriting hypergraph grammars”, Techn. Report, University of Leiden and University of Bordeaux (1990)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Ehrig, M. Nagl, G. Rozenberg and A. Rosenfeld (eds.) Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 291 (1987)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Engelfriet, “Context-free NCE graph grammars” Proc. FCT 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 380 (1989), 148–161Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Engelfriet and G. Leih, “Complexity of boundary graph grammars” RAIRO Theoret. Inform. Appl.24, (1990), 267–274Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Engelfriet, G. Leih, and E. Welzl, “Boundary graph grammars with dynamic edge relabeling”, Techn. Report, University of Leiden (1988), J. Comput. System Sci. to appear.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Engelfriet and G. Rozenberg, “A comparison of boundary graph grammars and context-free hypergraph grammars, Inform. Comput. 84 (1990), 163–206.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Harrison, “Introduction to Formal Language Theory”, Addison Wesley, 1978Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Janssens, G. Rozenberg and E. Welzl, “The bounded degree problem for NLC grammars is decidable”, J. Comput. System Sci. 33 (1986), 415–422.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Rozenberg and E. Welzl, “Boundary NLC graph grammars-basic definitions, normal forms and complexity”, Inform. Control 69 (1986), 131–167.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Rozenberg and E. Welzl, “Combinatorial properties of boundary NLC graph languages”, Discrete Appl. Math. 16 (1987), 58–73Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Schuster, “Graphgrammatiken und Grapheinbettungen: Algorithmen und Komplexität” Ph.D. Thesis and MIP-8711 Report, Universität Passau (1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz J. Brandenburg
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für InformatikUniversity of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations