DHHTGraphs - Modeling beyond plain graphs

Distributed Hierarchical Hyper-TGraphs :

Modeling beyond plain graphs

Daniel Bildhauer, Jürgen EbertInstitute for Software Technology

University of Koblenz-Landau, [email protected]

jgralab.uni-koblenz.de

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Overview

• Motivation

• DHHTGraphs

• Details

• Implementation

• Conclusion

2

➡ Why?

➡ What?

➡ How?

➡ Does it work?

➡ Current state and what comes next?


Why?


4


5

Simple graph representation

• Symbols are represented by nodes

• Lines connecting symbols are represented by edges

• But: Some symbols are relation-like and some lines belong together


Issues of graph representation

• Models contain ad modeling profits from:

• N-ary relationships

• Abstraction and refinement

• Distribution

• Graphs are a suitable representation of models

• Above concepts are not supported by plain graphs

• Workarounds & existing solutions not sufficient6


Workarounds & existing solutions

• Workarounds cause extra effort to handle graphs

• Relation-like vertices simulate n-ary relations

• Marking of elements simulates abstraction levels

• Existing extended graph concepts are not sufficient

• Many variants of hyperedges, hierarchy and distribution, but no integrated solution

• Graph model to restricted or to complex

• Not fully implemented/no convenient API

7


What?


Demands to a modern graph framework

• Seamless integration of distribution, hierarchy and hyperedges with established graph concepts

• Precise and well-defined graph formalism

• Ability to specify domain-specific aspects & constraints by graph schemas

• Efficient implementation to handle large graphs

• Seamless integration in modern software by API

9


Proposal: DHHTGraphs• Distribution of graphs over networks

• Hierarchical structuring and refinement

• Refinement of elements by nested graphs

• Refinement of graphs by visibility layers

• Hyperedges with labeled directed ends

• Typing and attribution of vertices and edges

• Ordering of incidences at vertices and edges

• Compatibel to existing concepts as far as possible10


How?


Hypergraphs• Typing, attribution and

ordering of vertices and edges

• Connection by labeled, directed & ordered incidences traversable in both directions

• Equality and duality of vertices and edges

• Vertices represent entities, edges their relationships

v1: BusinessProcessname=“pay order“

v2: Featurename=“payment

method“

v3: TransformationRule

e1: FeatureTraceability Link

id=4711

i1: realizedProcess i3: realizedFeature

v4: Activityname=“pay order“

i2: usedRule i4: target

[1] [1]

[1] [1]

{1}{2}

{3}{4}

12


Metamodeling Hypergraphs• Modeling language grUML

(graph UML)

• Vertex- and Edge classes define types and attributes

• Incidence classes define labeled connections

• Specialization of vertex-, edge-, and incidence classes

• Multiplicities and incidence inheritance for vertex- and edge classes

TransformationRule

name: String

ModelElement

name: String

ModelElementFeature

ModelElementBusinessProcess

Activity

TraceabilityLinkid: int

FeatureTraceabilityLink realizedFeature

subsets sourcerealizedProcesssubsets source

usedRule

source

target

0..*

0..1 0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

13

#vertices per edge

#edges per vertex


Hierarchical graphs

• Element refinement by tree-like nesting of graphs in elements

• Connections across boundaries

• Border of nested graphs are of same kind as nested elements

• Graph refinement by visibility layers for elements

• Refinements are DHHTGraphs on their own v5: Activity

name=“enter credit card details“

e2:FeatureTraceability

Link

e1:FeatureTraceability

Link

i8: target i9: target



i5: usedRule i7: usedRule

14


Metamodeling hierarchy• Compositions define possible

nesting relationships

• Tree-like on instance level

• Stereotyped compositions define edge nesting

• Compositions also define edge classes (compatibility to classical graph technology)

• Allowed visibility indicated by constraints (kappa)


ActivityNode

Activity Branch

partOf

0..1

0..*

<<nested>>

ModelElementconstraints{kappa=0..4}

target

15


Distributed graphs• Partitioning and distribution

across several stations

• Treatment of local and global graphs in the same way

• Compatibility to hierarchy

• Distributed graphs are full DHHTGraphs with support of distribution and hierarchy

• No domain specific features, thus no metamodeling

v1: BusinessProcessname=“pay order“

v2: Featurename=“payment

method“


e1: FeatureTraceability Link

id=4711

realizedProcess realizedFeature


usedRule target

16


Does it work?


Implementation

• Extension of Java library JGraLab for plain TGraphs

• Typing, attribution... realized by native Java constructs

• Extended symmetric incidence lists as datastructure

• Distribution by Java Remote Method Invocation, efficient access by element-ids identify machine

• In-memory storage

• 1GB: 106 vertices, 106 edges, 5x106 incidences (creation 7s)

• Breadth first search on that graph in 2,5s on 2,3GHz 18


API

• Object-oriented access to all DHHTGraph properties

• Equal treatment of complete graphs and all subgraphs

• Seamless integration in applications by generated schema-specific API (interface+implementation)

public interface TraceabilityLink extends Edge {

public int get_id();

public void set_id(int _id);

public TraceabilityLink getNextTraceabilityLink();

public TraceabilityLink_source getFirst_source();

public TraceabilityLink_rule getFirst_rule();}

public interface FeatureTraceabilityLink extends TraceabilityLink {

public FeatureTraceabilityLink getNextFeatureTraceabilityLink();

public FeatureTraceabilityLink_process getFirst_process(); public FeatureTraceabilityLink_activity getFirst_activity();}

ModelElementFeature

ModelElementBusinessProcess

FeatureTraceabilityLink

featuresubsets source

processsubsets source 0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*


19

via KM3-like DSL tg


Current state & what comes next?


Main design decisions

• Vertices and edges are dual

• Vertices represent entities, edges their relations

• Distribution and hierarchy are compatible

• Subgraphs are DHHTGraphs on their own

• Nested vertices and edges have only vertices or edges on their border, respectively

• Seamless from definition to implementation21


The future: Querying DHHTGraphs

• Based on existing TGraph query language GReQL

22

from process:V{Process}with process (-->{FeatureTraceabilityLink_process} <--{TraceabiliyLink_rule})+ & {TransformationRule @ thisVertex.name=“MyRule“}report process -->{FeatureTraceabilityLink} end


Conclusion• Seamless realization of

• Hyperedges with labeled ends

• Nesting of graphs in elements

• Abstraction levels by visibility layers

• Distribution

• Based on formal mathematical definition

• Metamodeling of domain-specific aspects

• Efficient implementation & convenient APIs

• Available soon at jgralab.uni-koblenz.de under GPL23


Thanks for your attention!

Any questions?

DHHTGraphs - Modeling beyond plain graphs

Technology

renement distribution

graphs relation

renement renement of

border of nested graphs

attribution of vertices

dehierarchical graphs

dedistributed graphs

edges compatibel