An Algebra of Hierarchical Graphs @ IMT Job Market Seminar 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

An Algebra of Hierarchical Graphs @ IMT Job Market Seminar 2009

on

  • 3,567 views

We de ne an algebraic theory of hierarchical graphs, whose equational part characterises graph isomorphism, i.e. it is formed by a sound and complete set of axioms equating two terms whenever they ...

We de ne an algebraic theory of hierarchical graphs, whose equational part characterises graph isomorphism, i.e. it is formed by a sound and complete set of axioms equating two terms whenever they represent the same hierarchical graph. Our algebra can thus be understood as a high-level language for describing graphs with a nested structure,
and is then particularly suited for the visual speci cation of process calculi with inherently hierarchical features such as sessions, transactions or locations. We illustrate our approach by encoding CaSPiS, a recently
proposed session-centered calculus.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,567
Views on SlideShare
3,542
Embed Views
25

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
30
Comments
0

3 Embeds 25

http://www.slideshare.net 20
http://www.linkedin.com 3
https://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

An Algebra of Hierarchical Graphs @ IMT Job Market Seminar 2009 An Algebra of Hierarchical Graphs @ IMT Job Market Seminar 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • An algebra of hierarchical graphs (and its applications) Alberto Lluch-Lafuente (based on a collaboration Pisa/Leicester within the Sensoria project) Department of Computer Science, Universit` di Pisa a Software Engineering for Service-Oriented Overlay Computers Job Market Seminars IMT Lucca, May 25 2009
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • The structure of data, programs and all that We observe 1) composition, 2) containment and 3) references.
  • The structure of data, programs and all that We observe 1) composition, 2) containment and 3) references. Programs (e.g. Pascal) 1. control flow 2. scopes 3. variables
  • The structure of data, programs and all that We observe 1) composition, 2) containment and 3) references. Programs (e.g. Pascal) 1. control flow 2. scopes 3. variables Data (e.g. XML) 1. element list 2. tag hierarchy 3. references
  • The structure of data, programs and all that We observe 1) composition, 2) containment and 3) references. Programs (e.g. Pascal) 1. control flow 2. scopes 3. variables Data (e.g. XML) 1. element list 2. tag hierarchy 3. references Other examples: file system navigation workflows (BPEL) diagrams (UML) etc.
  • The structure of modern data, programs and all that Modern systems increase the relevance of containment and the interplay with composition and references becomes more subtle.
  • The structure of modern data, programs and all that Modern systems increase the relevance of containment and the interplay with composition and references becomes more subtle. E.g. Nested... Transactions
  • The structure of modern data, programs and all that Modern systems increase the relevance of containment and the interplay with composition and references becomes more subtle. E.g. Nested... Transactions Locations
  • The structure of modern data, programs and all that Modern systems increase the relevance of containment and the interplay with composition and references becomes more subtle. E.g. Nested... Transactions Locations Sessions
  • The structure of modern data, programs and all that Modern systems increase the relevance of containment and the interplay with composition and references becomes more subtle. E.g. Nested... Transactions Locations Sessions Membranes Etc.
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Networking scenario Let us consider a simple networking scenario with some structure: topology (e.g. line, bus, ring, etc.) nesting (e.g. home sub-network, etc.) references (e.g. file sharing, services, etc.)
  • Networking scenario: visual approach bus
  • Networking scenario: visual approach line bus
  • Networking scenario: visual approach line bus ring
  • Networking scenario: visual approach line bus subnet ring
  • Networking scenario: visual approach line bus subnet ring
  • Networking scenario: visual approach line + refs bus + refs subnet + refs ring + refs
  • Networking scenario: textual approach host | host | host | host | host
  • Networking scenario: textual approach host ; host ; host host | host | host | host | host
  • Networking scenario: textual approach host ; host ; host host | host | host | host | host < host ; host ; host ; host ; host >
  • Networking scenario: textual approach host ; host ; host host | host | host | host | host [ host ; host ] < host ; host ; host ; host ; host >
  • Networking scenario: textual approach < host ; host(a) ; host ; host(a) ; host >
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Two trends to formal textual and visual specifications Algebraic Graph-based Terms elements Graphs (diagrams) host(a) | host(b) flat, hierarchical, etc.
  • Two trends to formal textual and visual specifications Algebraic Graph-based Terms elements Graphs (diagrams) host(a) | host(b) flat, hierarchical, etc. Operations vocabulary Graph compositions ·|· : Bus × Bus → Bus Union, tensor, etc.
  • Two trends to formal textual and visual specifications Algebraic Graph-based Terms elements Graphs (diagrams) host(a) | host(b) flat, hierarchical, etc. Operations vocabulary Graph compositions ·|· : Bus × Bus → Bus Union, tensor, etc. Axioms equivalence Homomorphisms x|y≡y|x isomorphism, etc.
  • Two trends to formal textual and visual specifications Algebraic Graph-based Terms elements Graphs (diagrams) host(a) | host(b) flat, hierarchical, etc. Operations vocabulary Graph compositions ·|· : Bus × Bus → Bus Union, tensor, etc. Axioms equivalence Homomorphisms x|y≡y|x isomorphism, etc. Rewrite rules dynamics Transformation rules host(x) −→ host
  • Goal statement The spirit of our research is ”to conciliate algebraic and graph-based specifications”
  • Goal statement The spirit of our research is ”to conciliate algebraic and graph-based specifications” The work presented in this talk has the goal to ”Equip algebraic specifications with a graphical representation that is Intuitive Easy to define Easy to prove correct
  • Main technical goal: mapping coherent wrt. equivalence graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)]
  • Main technical goal: mapping coherent wrt. equivalence graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)]
  • Main technical goal: mapping coherent wrt. equivalence graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)] congruent network2 host | [ host | host(a)] | host(a)
  • Main technical goal: mapping coherent wrt. equivalence graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)] congruent graph2 network2 host | [ host | host(a)] | host(a)
  • Main technical goal: mapping coherent wrt. equivalence graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)] congruent isomorphic graph2 network2 host | [ host | host(a)] | host(a)
  • Main technical problem: representation distance grammar, structural congruence, etc. very different syntax! adjacency matrix, tuples, sets, morphisms
  • Main technical problem: representation distance similar syntax solution: graph algebras similar syntax
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • The syntax of the graph algebra G, H ::= 0 the empty graph
  • The syntax of the graph algebra G, H ::= 0 | x a node called x
  • The syntax of the graph algebra G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) an edge labelled with t attached to x
  • The syntax of the graph algebra G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) | G || H parallel composition: disjoint union up to common nodes
  • The syntax of the graph algebra G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) | G || H | (νx)G declaration of a new node x
  • The syntax of the graph algebra D ::= Tx [G] G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) | G || H | (νx)G graph G with interface of type T exposing x
  • The syntax of the graph algebra D ::= Tx [G] G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) | G || H | (νx)G | D(y ) a nested graph attached to y
  • The syntax of the graph algebra D ::= Tx [G] G, H ::= 0 | x | t(x) | G || H | (νx)G | D(y ) a nested graph attached to y
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Hierarchical graph isomorphism
  • Hierarchical graph isomorphism
  • Structural axioms characterise graph isomorphism G || H ≡ H || G (PARALLEL1) G || (H || I) ≡ (G || H) || I (PARALLEL2) is equivalent to
  • Structural axioms characterise graph isomorphism G || H ≡ H || G (PARALLEL1) G || (H || I) ≡ (G || H) || I (PARALLEL2) G || 0 ≡ G (NODES1) (νx)(νy )G ≡ (νy )(νx)G (NODES2) (νx)0 ≡ 0 (NODES5) (νx)G ≡ (νy )G{y /x } if y ∈ fn(G) (NODES3) Lx [G] ≡ Ly [G{y /x }] if |y | ∩ fn(G) = ∅ (NODES4) G || (νx)H ≡ (νx)(G || H) if x ∈ fn(G) (NODES5) Lx [(νy )G](z) ≡ (νy )Lx [G](z) if y ∈ |x| ∪ |z| (NODES6) x || G ≡ G if x ∈ fn(G) (NODES7) These axioms are rather standard and thus intuitive to those familiar with algebraic specifications.
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Typical structures are derived operators (network) nesting [X ] def SubBus p [X (p)], with X : Bus =
  • Typical structures are derived operators (network) parallel composition X | Y def Busp [X (p)|| Y (p)] = Axiom Busx [G](y ) ≡ G{y /x } gets rid of associativity and commutativity.
  • Typical structures are derived operators (network) sequential composition X ; Y def Linein,out [(νmid) X (in, mid) || Y (mid, out)] =
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • The model of hierarchical graphs intuitive visual representation complex textual representation we are hiding
  • The model of hierarchical graphs intuitive visual representation complex textual representation we are hiding Linein,out [(ν mid) host(in, mid) ; SubLinein,out [(ν mid) host(in, mid) ; host(mid, out) ; ] (mid,out) ]
  • From graph terms to graphs
  • From graph terms to graphs Formal definition x = x, ∅, ⊥ , ⊥, ∅, {x}, ∅ l(x) = |x|, e, e → x , ⊥, ∅, |x|, ∅ (νx)G = GG , IG , XG , FG x, ∅ 0 = ∅, ⊥, ⊥, ∅, ∅ G || H = GG ⊕ HH , IG ⊕ IH , XG ⊕ XH , FG ∪ FH , ∅ Lx [G] = FG , e , e → x , e → GG , IG , XG , e → idFG , FG x, x D(x) = GD {VD /x }, ID , XD {VD /x }, FD ∪ |x|, ∅ if D : L ∧ flatL ∈≡d D(x) = ID (e){x /FID (e) }, IID (e) , XID (e) , FID (e) ∪ |x|, ∅ if D : L ∧ flatL ∈≡d
  • From graph terms to graphs the algebra is offering... eq X | Y = Bus[p . p | X{p} | Y{p}] 1 self-contained line of code vs 13 lines full of auxiliary functions!
  • Main result: coherence for the graph algebra graphterm1 graph1 Bus[ p . host(p,a) | host(p) ... ] congruent isomorphic graph2 graphterm2 Bus[ p . host(p) ... | host(p,a) ]
  • Outline Introduction On structural issues A simple scenario Goal statement An algebra of hierarchical graphs A syntax for hierarchical graphs Identifying equivalent graphs Expressing typical structures Hiding the complexity of hierarchical graphs Conclusion
  • Main application of the result: encodings are facilitated graph1 network1 host(a) | host | [ host | host(a)] congruent isomorphic graph2 network2 host | [ host | host(a)] | host(a)
  • Main application of the result: encodings are facilitated graphterm1 graph1 Bus[ p . network1 host(p,a) | host(p) host(a) ... | host | [ host | host(a)] ] congruent congruent isomorphic graph2 network2 graphterm2 host Bus[ p . | [ host | host(a)] host(p) | host(a) ... | host(p,a) ]
  • The algebra facilitates a modular implementation Specification Graph languages formats networks dot algebra graphs pi-calculus GraphML caspis External etc. Tools
  • The algebra facilitates a modular implementation Specification Graph languages formats networks dot algebra graphs pi-calculus GraphML caspis analysis External etc. Tools
  • Implementation snapshot (a simple visualiser) Available at www.albertolluch.com/adr2graphs
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09]
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09] Process calculi [GLB]
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09] Process calculi [GLB] Workflows [GLB]
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09] Process calculi [GLB] Workflows [GLB] Modelled without the algebra Service modelling language [BLME07]
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09] Process calculi [GLB] Workflows [GLB] Modelled without the algebra Service modelling language [BLME07] UML4SOA profile [BLME07]
  • Applications (general) Modelled with the algebra Network topologies [BL09] Process calculi [GLB] Workflows [GLB] Modelled without the algebra Service modelling language [BLME07] UML4SOA profile [BLME07] Architectural styles [BLM08]
  • Applications (service oriented calculi) CaSpiS (sessions) Nesting of sessions Sharing of session channels Activity A has invoked two services S1, S2 creating two nested sessions with channels a, b.
  • Applications (service oriented calculi) CaSpiS (sessions) Nesting of sessions Sharing of session channels Sagas (transactions) A saga as an ordinary workflow Nesting of transactions compensated with another workflow. Workflow constructs A workflow as saga without compensation flow.
  • Related work GS-Graphs [CG99] syntactical structure, algebraic presentation flat (hierarchy-as-tree)
  • Related work GS-Graphs [CG99] syntactical structure, algebraic presentation flat (hierarchy-as-tree) Ranked Graphs [Gad03] node sharing, calculi encoding no composition interface, flat
  • Related work GS-Graphs [CG99] syntactical structure, algebraic presentation flat (hierarchy-as-tree) Ranked Graphs [Gad03] node sharing, calculi encoding no composition interface, flat Hierarchical Graphs [DHP02] basic model, composition interface no node sharing, no algebraic syntax
  • Related Work Bigraphs [JM03] nesting + linking 2 overlapping structures, complex syntax, no composition interface, flat
  • Related Work Bigraphs [JM03] nesting + linking 2 overlapping structures, complex syntax, no composition interface, flat Graph Algebra, SHR [CMR94] basic algebra flat, no composition interface
  • Concluding remarks The graph algebra . . . Grounds on widely-accepted models; Hides the complexity of hierarchical graphs; Enables proofs by structural induction; Extends ADR with node sharing and serves as primitive algebra for ADR; Simplifies the modelling of process calculi; Offers a technique for complementing textual and visual notations in formal tools; Has been evaluated on calculi, networks, etc. Natural implementation in Maude (support for theorem proving, model checking, simulation, etc.)
  • Thanks for your attention
  • Credits and references I Roberto Bruni and Alberto Lluch Lafuente. Ten virtues of structured graphs. In Invited paper at the 8th International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GT-VMT’09), Electronic Communications of the EASST, 2009. To appear. Roberto Bruni, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, and Ugo Montanari. Hierarchical Design Rewriting with Maude. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and its Applications (WRLA’08), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 2008. To appear. Roberto Bruni, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, Ugo Montanari, and Emilio Tuosto. Service Oriented Architectural Design. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Trustworthy Global Computing (TGC’07), volume 4912 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 186–203. Springer, 2007. Andrea Corradini and Fabio Gadducci. An algebraic presentation of term graphs, via gs-monoidal categories. applied categorical structures. Applied Categorical Structures, 7:7–299, 1999. Andrea Corradini, Ugo Montanari, and Francesca Rossi. An abstract machine for concurrent modular systems: CHARM. Theoretical Compututer Science, 122(1&2):165–200, 1994. Frank Drewes, Berthold Hoffmann, and Detlef Plump. Hierarchical graph transformation. Journal on Computer and System Sciences, 64(2):249–283, 2002.
  • Credits and references II Fabio Gadducci. Term graph rewriting for the pi-calculus. In Atsushi Ohori, editor, Proceedings of the 1st Asian Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems, volume 2895 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 37–54. Springer, 2003. Fabio Gaducci, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, and Roberto Bruni. Graphical representation of process calculi via an algebra of hierarchical graphs. Manuscript available at http://www.albertolluch.com/papers/adr.algebra.pdf. O. H. Jensen and R. Milner. Bigraphs and mobile processes. Technical Report 570, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2003. Note: Some figures have been borrowed from the Internet and the referred papers.