Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bottom-up and top-down tree transformations— a comparison

  • Published:
Mathematical systems theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The top-down and bottom-up tree transducer are incomparable with respect to their transformation power. The difference between them is mainly caused by the different order in which they use the facilities of copying and nondeterminism. One can however define certain simple tree transformations, independent of the top-down/bottom-up distinction, such that each tree transformation, top-down or bottom-up, can be decomposed into a number of these simple transformations. This decomposition result is used to give simple proofs of composition results concerning bottom-up tree transformations.

A new tree transformation model is introduced which generalizes both the top-down and the bottom-up tree transducer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. B. S. Baker, Tree transductions and families of tree languages,Ph.D.Thesis, Harvard University, 1973, andProc. 5th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (1973), 200–206.

  2. J. Doner, Tree acceptors and some of their applications,J. Comp. Syst. Sci. 4 (1970), 406–451.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Ginsburg,The mathematical theory of context-free languages, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. E. Hopcroft andJ. D. Ullman,Formal languages and their relation to automata, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, Mass., 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Magidor andG. Moran, Finite automata over finite trees, Hebrew University,Technical Report No. 30, 1969.

  6. W. C. Rounds, Trees, transducers and transformations,Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1968.

  7. W. C. Rounds, Mappings and grammars on trees,Math. Systems Theory 4 (1970), 257–287.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. W. Thatcher, Generalized2 sequential machine maps,IBM Res. Report RC 2466, 1969.

  9. J. W. Thatcher, Generalized2 sequential machine maps,J. Comp. Syst. Sci. 4 (1970), 339–367.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. W. Thatcher, There's a lot more to finite automata theory than you would have thought,Proc. 4th Ann. Princeton Conf. on Informations Sciences and Systems (1970), 263–276. Also published in revised form under the title “Tree automata: an informal survey” inCurrents in the Theory of Computing (ed. A. V. Aho), Prentice-Hall, 1973, 143–172.

  11. J. W. Thatcher andJ. B. Wright, Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision-problem of second-order logic,Math. Systems Theory 2 (1968), 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

    Joost Engelfriet

Authors
  1. Joost Engelfriet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engelfriet, J. Bottom-up and top-down tree transformations— a comparison. Math. Systems Theory 9, 198–231 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01704020

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01704020

Keywords

Search

Navigation