Equational reasoning with context-free families of string diagrams

String diagrams provide an intuitive language for expressing networks of interacting processes graphically. A discrete representation of string diagrams, called string graphs, allows for mechanised equational reasoning by double-pushout rewriting. However, one often wishes to express not just single equations, but entire families of equations between diagrams of arbitrary size. To do this we define a class of context-free grammars, called B-ESG grammars, that are suitable for defining entire families of string graphs, and crucially, of string graph rewrite rules. We show that the language-membership and match-enumeration problems are decidable for these grammars, and hence that there is an algorithm for rewriting string graphs according to B-ESG rewrite patterns. We also show that it is possible to reason at the level of grammars by providing a simple method for transforming a grammar by string graph rewriting, and showing admissibility of the induced B-ESG rewrite pattern.Comment: International Conference on Graph Transformation, ICGT 2015. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21145-9_

Ten virtues of structured graphs

This paper extends the invited talk by the first author about the virtues of structured graphs. The motivation behind the talk and this paper relies on our experience on the development of ADR, a formal approach for the design of styleconformant, reconfigurable software systems. ADR is based on hierarchical graphs with interfaces and it has been conceived in the attempt of reconciling software architectures and process calculi by means of graphical methods. We have tried to write an ADR agnostic paper where we raise some drawbacks of flat, unstructured graphs for the design and analysis of software systems and we argue that hierarchical, structured graphs can alleviate such drawbacks

Avoiding Unnecessary Information Loss: Correct and Efficient Model Synchronization Based on Triple Graph Grammars

Model synchronization, i.e., the task of restoring consistency between two interrelated models after a model change, is a challenging task. Triple Graph Grammars (TGGs) specify model consistency by means of rules that describe how to create consistent pairs of models. These rules can be used to automatically derive further rules, which describe how to propagate changes from one model to the other or how to change one model in such a way that propagation is guaranteed to be possible. Restricting model synchronization to these derived rules, however, may lead to unnecessary deletion and recreation of model elements during change propagation. This is inefficient and may cause unnecessary information loss, i.e., when deleted elements contain information that is not represented in the second model, this information cannot be recovered easily. Short-cut rules have recently been developed to avoid unnecessary information loss by reusing existing model elements. In this paper, we show how to automatically derive (short-cut) repair rules from short-cut rules to propagate changes such that information loss is avoided and model synchronization is accelerated. The key ingredients of our rule-based model synchronization process are these repair rules and an incremental pattern matcher informing about suitable applications of them. We prove the termination and the correctness of this synchronization process and discuss its completeness. As a proof of concept, we have implemented this synchronization process in eMoflon, a state-of-the-art model transformation tool with inherent support of bidirectionality. Our evaluation shows that repair processes based on (short-cut) repair rules have considerably decreased information loss and improved performance compared to former model synchronization processes based on TGGs.Comment: 33 pages, 20 figures, 3 table

Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi

Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi. Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other, independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona, Spain. 201