Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Double-Pushout Rewriting in Context

Rule Composition and Parallel Independence

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Graph Transformation (ICGT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11629))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Recently, we introduced double-pushout rewriting in context (DPO-C) as a conservative extension of the classical double-pushout approach (DPO) at monic matches. DPO-C allows non-monic rules such that the split and merge of items can be specified together with deterministic context distribution and joining. First results showed that DPO-C is practically applicable, for example in the area of model refactoring, and that the theory of the DPO-approach is very likely to carry over to DPO-C. In this paper, we extend the DPO-C-theory. We investigate rule composition and characterise parallel independence.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more examples, see [11].

  2. 2.

    Every well-structured object-oriented model shall be hierarchical.

  3. 3.

    Two-headed arrows stand for a pair of arrows one in each direction.

  4. 4.

    The examples in the introduction also use this underlying category.

  5. 5.

    Again, the associations and inheritance relations the classifier adds and the associations and inheritance relations which are mapped to them by the totalisation are painted as dotted arrows.

  6. 6.

    The pushout morphisms \(c_{l}\) and \(c_{r}\) are monic by Fact 2 (3).

  7. 7.

    If (m, g) and (p, h) are pushouts of (n, l) resp. (n, r) in a DPO-derivation with rule \(\varrho =(l,r)\) at match m, we denote the trace (g, h) by \(\varrho \left\langle m\right\rangle \) and co-match p by \(m\left\langle \varrho \right\rangle \).

  8. 8.

    See [13] for composition of partial maps and especially composition of monic spans.

  9. 9.

    To my knowledge, rule and trace composition has never been investigated in isolation in the DPO-approach. Some aspects are handled within the concurrency theorem [4].

  10. 10.

    The latter by pullback decomposition of \((c_{12},l_{2}')\).

  11. 11.

    See Rewrite Property 9(1).

  12. 12.

    This condition is identical to the one in [3].

  13. 13.

    This notion of residual is a conservative extension of the notion for DPO-rewriting with monic rules at monic matches, since traces become monic in this case as well and it is easy to see that a triangle \(g\circ m_{D}=m\) with monic g is a pullback diagram.

  14. 14.

    Compare Fig. 12.

  15. 15.

    More precisely, pushouts preserve isomorphisms.

  16. 16.

    Pushout \((p_{1},h_{1})\) of \((r_{1},n_{1})\) is also pullback by Fact 2(4) and pullbacks compose.

References

  1. Corradini, A., Duval, D., Echahed, R., Prost, F., Ribeiro, L.: AGREE – algebraic graph rewriting with controlled embedding. In: Parisi-Presicce, F., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) ICGT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9151, pp. 35–51. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21145-9_3

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Corradini, A., et al.: On the essence of parallel independence for the double-pushout and sesqui-pushout approaches. In: Heckel, R., Taentzer, G. (eds.) Graph Transformation, Specifications, and Nets. LNCS, vol. 10800, pp. 1–18. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75396-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Danos, V., Heindel, T., Honorato-Zimmer, R., Stucki, S.: Reversible sesqui-pushout rewriting. In: Giese, H., König, B. (eds.) ICGT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8571, pp. 161–176. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09108-2_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31188-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ehrig, H., Ermel, C., Golas, U., Hermann, F.: Graph and Model Transformation - General Framework and Applications. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47980-3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Habel, A., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundam. Inform. 26(3/4), 287–313 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Habel, A., Müller, J., Plump, D.: Double-pushout graph transformation revisited. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 11(5), 637–688 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Heindel, T.: Hereditary pushouts reconsidered. In: Ehrig, H., Rensink, A., Rozenberg, G., Schürr, A. (eds.) ICGT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6372, pp. 250–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15928-2_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Lack, S., Sobocinski, P.: Adhesive and quasiadhesive categories. ITA 39(3), 511–545 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Löwe, M.: Characterisation of parallel independence in AGREE-rewriting. In: Lambers, L., Weber, J. (eds.) ICGT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10887, pp. 118–133. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92991-0_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Löwe, M.: Double-pushout rewriting in context. In: Mazzara, M., Ober, I., Salaün, G. (eds.) STAF 2018. LNCS, vol. 11176, pp. 447–462. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04771-9_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Löwe, M.: Double pushout rewriting in context. Technical report 2018/02, FHDW Hannover (2018). www.researchgate.net

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Robinson, E., Rosolini, G.: Categories of partial maps. Inf. Comput. 79(2), 95–130 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FHDW Hannover, Freundallee 15, 30173, Hanover, Germany

    Michael Löwe

Authors
  1. Michael Löwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Löwe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Esther Guerra

  2. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Fernando Orejas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Löwe, M. (2019). Double-Pushout Rewriting in Context. In: Guerra, E., Orejas, F. (eds) Graph Transformation. ICGT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11629. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23611-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23611-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23610-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23611-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation