K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 118--125, 1994.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....(3.3) Transform. The form of a figure can be changed by dragging a handle. 4) Delete. A figure can be erased by clicking it. SYSTEM In this section, we describe the drawing editor system and its grammar. Parser The CMG parser we use is based on the parser proposed by Chok and Marriott [2, 10]. We use an extended CMG parser that can invoke actions such as alternate attributes of the RHS token or delete the specified token when a production is applied. CMG is composed of productions. If a production is applied, it will register a new token specified on the LHS. The attributes of the ....

K. Marriott, "Constraint Multiset Grammars", Pro- ceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp.118-125, 1994.

....Several specification methods have been proposed and proven to be useful in practical applications. Examples include Web and array grammars [15] positional grammars [16] relational grammars [7, 17] unification grammars [18] attributed multiset grammars [4] constraint multiset grammars [19], and layered graph grammars [9] In this section, we discuss some of the related grammars and compare them with reserved graph grammars. The relational grammars of Wittenburg [7] are restricted to relational structures, where relationships of the same type define partial orders. Ferrucci et al. ....

....local confluence. Parsing can be done in polynomial time if the generated graphs are all connected and the maximum number of edges at any single vertex is known in advance. This latter restriction also applies to Brandenburg s DNELC graph grammar [14] Marriott s constraint multiset grammars [19] provide context elements. Introducing not exits constraints prevents any possible overlap between the right hand sides of productions, but also makes syntax specifications deterministic. Golin s picture layout grammars [4] allow productions with one non terminal on the left hand side and at ....

Marriott, K. (1994) Constraint multiset grammars. In Proc. 10th IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages, St. Louis, MI, October 4--7, pp. 118--125. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

....types of relationships has meant that there does not yet exist a universally agreed upon formalism to express all VPLs. The focus of current research is to produce an analog to EBNF for VPLs. An example of an attempt to dene a general formalism for VPLs is Constraint Multiset Grammars (CMGs) [55]. A CMG production indicate which geometric conditions need to be satised for a given 2 D collection of diagrams that represent a visual sentence in the VPL. Expressing the syntax of out VPL in a formal grammar such as CMG is not necessary. There is no advantage in doing so for the purpose of ....

K. Marriott, Constraint Multiset Grammars. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, Oct. 1994, pp. 118-125.

....at different levels of abstraction for use within a syntax directed editor. We propose graph oriented representations, and show how graph grammars can be used to define the allowed graphs at the different levels. However, other syntax definition formalisms, such as constraint multiset grammars [2, 8] or relational grammars [14] can also be used to define visual syntax at different levels of abstraction. We take constraint multiset grammars (CMG) as an example: this formalism is a variant of attributed multiset grammars as introduced by Golin [4] The following CMG production could be part of ....

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings 10th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages -- VL'94, pages 118--125, 1994.

....languages are used wide spread, there is still a standard visual formalism as the Backus Naur Forms missing to define their syntax and semantics. All the currently used grammars for syntax definition of visual languages, such as picture layout grammars [45,46] or constraint multiset grammars [66], use textual instead of visual notations, i.e. multi dimensional representations have to be coded into one dimensional strings. Using graph grammars instead we have a much more natural and itself visual formalism for this purpose. Visual sentences consisting of a set of visual symbols such as ....

....which would be the notation for defining the syntax and semantics of a visual language or for generating visual language editors, interpreters, and compilers. Even worse, almost all currently used VPL syntax definition formalisms like picture layout grammars [46] or constraint multiset grammars [66] have a textual instead of a visual notation. They are processed using standard text editors, parsers, and so on. As a consequence, most published visual languages come with informal and imprecise definitions, and the development of their tools often requires way far too many person years. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In [112], pages 118--125, 1994.

....by DFG grant Wi 841. Ever since Sketchpad [25] constraint based methods have been used for processing interactive graphics, as is highlighted by a recent special issue [6] However, only little work has been dedicated to the constraint based interpretation of graphical notations. Exceptions are [12, 15, 18] where constraint based grammars and constraint logic based formalisms, respectively, are used for diagram parsing and interpretation. The major new contribution of the approach presented here is that it introduces the notion of diagrammatic systems as constraint domains by showing how many ....

....formalisms with subtle di erences have been described in the literature and the interested reader is invited to refer to [17] for a survey and comparison. Here, we are presenting Constraint Relational Grammars (CRGs, 19, 20] a formalism that inherits from Constraint Multiset Grammars (CMGs, [12, 15]) and Relational Grammars (RGs, 26] RGs only use a relational representation for spatial relationships and CMGs solely rely on constraints over real valued attributes to express spatial constraints. In contrast, CRGs use a dual representation: Symbolic relations are their primary representation ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In VL94: IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages, 1994.

....is a diagrammatic language itself, and discusses its application to the definition and evaluation of visual mathematical notations. A Method for the Formalization of Static Diagram Notations Extensions of logic grammars have been used before to specify visual languages (e.g. in (Tanaka 1991; Marriott 1994; Ferrucci et al. 1991; Bolognesi Latella 1989) Our approach extends this idea and provides a more general integration of logic programming with visual expressions by integrating diagrammatic structures as first class data into a full constraint logic programming framework. This integration, ....

Marriott, K. 1994. Constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. St. Louis/MO: IEEE Computer Society Press.

....language. Penguins [28] is an intelligent diagram editor construction toolkit. It is to drawing editors what YACC is to parsers. The Penguins system uses constraints in two separate ways. First, it uses them for visual parsing, using the theory of constraint multi set grammars (CMGs) [99, 27]. After building an internal abstract representation of a picture, editors created using Penguins then permit direct manipulation of the picture while interactively maintaining the constraints. Penguinsgenerated drawing editors permit arbitrary linear equality and inequality constraints. 2.3.4 ....

Kim Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Language, pages 118--125, Los Alamitos, California, October 1994.

....for computers; diagrams have to be represented internally by a formal model which abstracts from diagrams redundant visual information and which makes informations about the diagram readily available. Several concepts have been used as internal models. Among others, multisets of tokens (Marriott 1994), attributed symbols (Bottoni et al. 1995) and different kind of graphs and hypergraphs. Among the graphs, typical examples are graphs where nodes represent tokens and edges represent relations between tokens (Rekers Schurr 1996) special graphs where nodes have distinct connection points which ....

Marriott, K. 1994. Constraint multiset grammars. In VL'94 (1994), 118--125.

....editing and interactions, diagrams have to internally represented by a formal model which abstracts from diagrams redundant visual information and which makes informations about the diagram readily available. Several concepts have been used as internal models. Among others, multisets of tokens [11], attributed symbols [3] and different kind of graphs and hypergraphs. Among the graphs, typical examples are graphs where nodes represent tokens and edges represent relationships between tokens [18] special graphs where nodes have distinct connection points which are then used by edges for ....

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In [24], pages 118--125, 1994.

....languages while on one hand desirable for the purposes of analysis and tool generation are on the other hand are intimidating as they are often cryptic and difficult to comprehend. This is often caused by the use of a fixed specification language burdened with expressing complex languages features [12, 8]. This problem is further magnified in the case of visual languages as the specification language must also deal with the complex visual notation and spatial relationships yielding very complicated specifications. The fact is, to promote the development of specifications we need formalisms and ....

K. Marriott. Constraint Multiset Grammars. In Proc. 1994 IEEE symposium on visual languages, pages 118--25, St Louis, Missouri USA, 1994.

....formal features of its syntax and semantics by defining an equivalent textual language. Finally, in order to have an unambiguous and autonomous syntactic description of our visual language, in Appendix B we formally define its visual syntax using a context free constraint multiset grammar (CMG) [20]. We also show how a diagram can be translated into its textual equivalent, a formula. This grammatical description of the visual language could seem too involved for the purpose of this paper, however its necessity is clear having in mind that the next step in our research as we explain in ....

....which opens the possibility of combining it with our visual syntax in order to add higher order features to our language. LOGraph appeal is the consistent view it gives the user of data and operations on data. The formal syntactic definition of our visual language using CMG grammars is based on [24, 20], where this type of visual grammars is introduced. Some ideas about hypergraph grammars as presented in [25] have also been useful. The ideas in [32] where the difference between incorrect and inconsistent diagrams is introduced have been fundamental in the design of the syntax directed ....

Kim Marriott. Constraint Multiset Grammars. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, St. Louis, Missouri, September 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press.

....language. Penguins [CM98] is an intelligent diagram editor construction toolkit. It is to drawing editors what YACC is to parsers. The Penguins system uses constraints in two separate ways. First, it uses them for visual parsing, using the theory of constraint multi set grammars (CMGs) Mar94, CM95] After building an internal abstract representation of a picture, editors created using Penguins then permit direct manipulation of the picture while interactively maintaining the constraints. Penguins generated drawing editors permit arbitrary linear equality and inequality constraints. ....

Kim Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Language, pages 118--125, Los Alamitos, CA, October 1994.

....visual languages are used wide spread, there is still a standard visual formalism as the Backus Naur Forms missing to define their syntax and semantics. All the currently used grammars for syntax definition of visual languages, such as picture layout grammars [4,5] or constraint multiset grammars [6], use textual instead of visual notations, i.e. multi dimensional representations have to be coded into one dimensional strings. Using graph grammars instead we have a much more natural and itself visual formalism for this purpose. Visual sentences consisting of a set of visual symbols such as ....

....which would be the notation for defining the syntax and semantics of a visual language or for generating visual language editors, interpreters, and compilers. Even worse, almost all currently used VPL syntax definition formalisms like picture layout grammars [5] or constraint multiset grammars [6] have a textual instead of a visual notation. They are processed using standard text editors, parsers, and so on. As a consequence, most published visual languages come with informal and imprecise definitions, and the development of their tools often requires way far too many person years. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In [107], pages 118--125, 1994.

.... However, we like to mention a few approaches: generalizations of attributed grammars (e.g. picture layout grammars [20] positional grammars (e.g. 21] and graph grammars (e.g. 22, 23, 24] Other approaches closely related to this one use (constraint) logic or relational formalisms (e.g. [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]) to represent spatial relationships. Experience has shown (reported by Wittenburg in [29] that some grammar approaches have limitations (e.g. no arbitrary ordering of input, only special relations allowed, connected graphs necessary, bottom up International Workshop on the Theory of Visual ....

....application domains. Helm and Marriott [26] developed a declarative specification and semantics for VLs. It is based on definite clause logic and implemented with the help of constraint logic programming. Marriott s recent approach is based on these ideas but utilizes constraint multiset grammars [30]. An advantage of our approach is the taxonomic hierarchy of concept definitions and the capabilities to reason about these specifications and their subsumption relationships. Cohn and Gooday [31] applied the RCC theory to the VL domain and also developed formal semantics for Pictorial Janus. ....

K. Marriott, "Constraint Multiset Grammars", In VL'94 [39], pp. 118--125.

....at different levels of abstraction for use within a syntax directed editor. We propose graph oriented representations, and show how graph grammars can be used to define the allowed graphs at the different levels. However, other syntax definition formalisms, such as constraint multiset grammars [CM95, Mar94] or relational grammars [Wit92] can also be used to define visual syntax at different levels of abstraction. We take constraint multiset grammars (CMG) as an example: this formalism is a variant of attributed multiset grammars as introduced by Golin [Gol91] The following CMG production could be ....

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings 10th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages -- VL'94, pages 118--125, 1994.

....than two decades now. Grammar like formalisms range from early approaches like web and array grammars [1] and shape grammars [2] to recent formalisms like positional grammars [3] relation grammars [4] unification grammars [5, 6, 7] attributed multiset grammars [8] constraint multiset grammars [9], and several types of graph grammars [10] There are also a variety of non grammar like formalisms, including algebraic approaches [11] and logic based approaches [12, 13, 14] In order to understand the tradeo#s and comparative advantages of these di#erent formalisms, there is a need for a ....

....2 Constraint Multiset Grammars We have chosen constraint multiset grammars (CMGs) as the basis for our taxonomy. CMGs have informally been introduced in [17] and have been used for a variety of reasonably complex tasks such as the parsing of state diagrams and mathematical equations. In [9] a precise formal treatment is given, and we review only the basic notions here. CMGs are rewrite systems for multisets of typed objects. Spatial relations are handled by defining arithmetic constraints on object attributes, that is, there is no explicit representation for spatial relations. A ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Marriott (1994) Constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 118-125.

....with a Babel of di#erent formalisms that are very hard to compare. Most of them are grammar like (such as Web and Array Grammars [15] Shape Grammars [7] Positional Grammars [4] Relational Grammars [6] Unification Grammars [18, 17] Attributed Multiset Grammars [8] Constraint Multiset Grammars [12], and several types of graph grammars [5] but logic based methods [10, 14, 9] and algebraical formalisms [16] are also used. Even when the discussion is restricted to grammar like formalisms, there is such a diversity in the underlying assumptions that a comparison is made di#cult. A systematic, ....

....di#erent specification methods to each other. 2 Constraint Multiset Grammars Constraint Multiset Grammars (CMGs) have been introduced in [11] and have been used in a number of complex tasks including real time editing [2] A formal treatment of the original context sensitive form is given in [12], and we only review the basic notions briefly. The choice of CMGs is justified by the fact that they are powerful enough to emulate a broad spectrum of other specification formalisms, so that these can be mapped into a hierarchy based on CMGs (cf. Sec. 5) Of course, any other choice of an ....

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1994.

....two decades now. Grammar like formalisms range from early approaches like web and array grammars [15] and shape grammars [6] to recent formalisms like positional grammars [3] relational grammars [5] unification grammars [18, 17] attributed multiset grammars [7] constraint multiset grammars [12], and several types of graph grammars [4] There are also a variety of non grammar like formalisms, including algebraic approaches [16] and logic based approaches [10, 14, 9] In order to understand the tradeo#s and comparative advantages of these di#erent formalisms, there is a need for a ....

....are shifting. 2 Constraint Multiset Grammars We have chosen constraint multiset grammars (CMGs) as the basis for our taxonomy. CMGs have informally been introduced in [11] and have been used for a variety of reasonably complex tasks like analysis of state diagrams and geometric diagrams. In [12] a precise formal treatment is given, and we review only the basic notions here. CMGs are rewrite systems for multisets of objects. Spatial relations are handled by defining arithmetical constraints on object attributes, i.e. there is no explicit representation for spatial relations. A ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1994.

No context found.

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 118--125, 1994.

No context found.

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 118--125, 1994.

No context found.

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 118--125, 1994.

No context found.

K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. Proc. IEEE VL'94, pp. 118--125, 1994.

No context found.

K. Marriott. Constraint Multiset Grammars. In Proc. IEEE Symposium of Visual Languages (VL'94), USA, 1994, pages 118 - 125, 1994.

No context found.

. Constraint multiset grammars. In [VL'94, 1994], pages

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC