Events

Calendar

 
APPLIGRAPH Meeting Paderborn, Germany September 5-6, 2000
Graph Drawing 2000 Colonial Williamsburg, USA September 20-23, 2000
CASCON 2000 Toronto, Canada November 13-16, 2000
WCRE 2000 Brisbane, Australia November 23-25, 2000
Dagstuhl Seminar Dagstuhl, Germany January 21-26, 2001
APPLIGRAPH Meeting Bremen, Germany
February 22-23, 2001
ICSE 2001 Toronto, Canada June 2-9, 2001

APPLIGRAPH (Application of Graph Transformation) is a meeting of the graph transformation community to discuss and exchange format for graphs.  A brief trip report is available below.

Graph Drawing 2000 is the annual meeting for that community. The Steering Committee is initiating an effort to define a common exchange format for graph/network data. They held an informal kick-off meeting at GD2000.  A brief trip report is available below.

CASCON is a Canadian software conference for researchers, industry, and government. Registration is free and there will be two half-day workshops on GXL. CSER (Consortium for Software Engineering Research) will meet November 11-12. 

At WCRE, there will be a panel on exchange formats. 

The Dagstuhl seminar is entitled "Interoperability of Reengineering Tools" and attendance is by invitation only. The organizers are Jürgen Ebert, Kostas Kontogiannis, and John Mylopoulos.

It may be possible to hold another WoSEF at ICSE 2000, but it will not be an official workshop since the deadline for submitting proposals has passed.

Past Meeting Reports

 

APPLIGRAPH Meeting, September 5-6, 2000

Andreas Winter and Andy Schürr attended this meeting in Paderborn.  There were 18 attendees from 11 universities.  The following is excerpted from Andreas' trip report.

The workshop started with a comparison of the proposed DTDs by Daniel Varro. He presented his understanding of these approaches on a conceptual level using class diagrams. This enabled us to discuss what to exchange on a conceptual level, independent of implementation in XML-DTD.  They identified three areas where they needed to achieve agreement:

  1.  graphs
  2. schemas (with a lot of associations to the class diagram for graphs)
  3. graph transformation systems (which includes graphs and schemas)
During the meeting, they discussed a number of different approaches to the different components.  Some participants were assigned "work packages" that are due on December 15, 2000.  They planned to discuss the proposals and resuts electronically in  December to February and to have a further meeting at the end of February.  The work packages were:
 
W1: UML Diagram to DTD Ralph Depke, Reiko Heckel
W2: UML Diagram to XML Schema Daniel Varro
W3: XML Schema Daniel Varro
W4: UML Diagrams for graph and graph schema Andy Schürr, Andreas Winter
W5: UML Diagrams for control Albert Zündorf
W6: UML Diagrams for GTS Michael Matz, Gabi Taentzer

GD2000 Kick-off Meeting, September 20, 2000

Susan Sim attended this meeting in Colonial Williamsburg.  The following  information is excerpted from my trip report.  More information is available in the official meeting minutes.

There were approximately thirty people at the meeting.  The meeting began with a couple of short presentations.  Stephen North (AT&T's dot)  gave a very brief introduction to XML and Scott Marshall (GraphXML) gave a very
brief survey of existing exchange formats.  We had a short break and then a requirements gathering session.  Ulrik
Brandes sat at the front of the room and took down a list of issues that needed consideration.  This exercise actually went very well and a number good points were raised. 

In general terms, they decided to break down the problem of representing drawings of graphs into four levels: structure, topology, geometry, and rendering.  Structure is simply the entities of the graph, such as nodes and edges.  I'm not really sure what is the difference between topology and geometry.  I asked a couple people afterwards and they weren't sure either.  I think topology is graph drawing characteristics, such as planar and maximum path length, while geometry is layout.  Rendering is the final depiction step, e.g. exactly what does a dashed line look like?

They decided to attack the structural level first, and called this "core level."  They decide that they wanted:

  • nodes with unique IDs
  • edges with optional IDs
  • edge direction attribute, with possible default at graph level (They want to allow both directed and undirected edges in the same graph.)
  • attributes on entities
Some questions still to be determined at the core level are:
  • other identification mechanisms
  • hyperedges
  • special edges
  • other edge types
After this discussion, I was given a chance to talk about GXL.  There is clearly a great deal of overlap between GD requirements and GXL features.  As a community, they have some work to do to determine what direction they
want to go-- using GXL, using some other existing standard, or creating something on their own. 

Back to WoSEF home page.