The CCMG Visual Language Hierarchy

  • Kim Marriott
  • Bernd Meyer


In Chapter 2 we saw that visual language specification methods come in a variety of forms, making the systematic comparison of different methods and the abstract classification of visual languages difficult. The fundamental role of the Chomsky hierarchy in formal language theory and compiler technology for textual languages has demonstrated the importance of language classification. However, there has been little attempt to develop a systematic and comprehensive hierarchy of visual languages based on their formal properties that could parallel the role of the Chomsky hierarchy in the field of visual languages. In this chapter we present such a hierarchy for visual languages and investigate the expressiveness and cost of parsing for the classes in the hierarchy. We will also demonstrate how other visual language specification methods can be mapped into this hierarchy so that it can serve to compare different formalisms. One consequence of our work is that a large group of “naturally occurring” visual languages inherently have context-sensitive properties. In contrast to formal language theory for textual languages, where the main distinction is that between context-sensitive languages and context-free languages, it is therefore necessary to build the major part of a visual language hierarchy around different forms of context-sensitivity.


Universal Quantification Derivation Tree Graph Grammar Visual Language Existential Quantifier 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. Abe, M. Mizumoto, J.-I. Toyoda, and K. Tanaka. Web grammars and several types of graphs.Journal of Computer and System Sciences7, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F.J Brandenburg. On polynomial time graph grammars. InFifth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STAGS 88)volume 294 ofLNCSpages 227–236. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S.S. Chok and K. Marriott. Automatic construction of user interfaces from constraint multiset grammars. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 242–250. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Costagliola, S. Orefice, G. Polese, G. Tortora, and M. Tucci. Automatic parser generation for pictorial languages. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 306–313. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    B. Courcelle. Graph rewriting: An algebraic and logic approach. In J. van Leeuwen, editorHandbook of Theoretical Computer Science.Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. Ferrucci, G. Pacini, G. Tortora, M. Tucci, and G. Vitiello. A predictive parser for visual languages specified by relation grammars. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 245–252. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.R. Garey and D.S Johnson. Computers and Intractibility: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E.J. Golin. A Method for the Specification and Parsing of Visual Languages. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E.J. Golin and S.P. Reiss. The specification of visual language syntax. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 105–110. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Helm, K. Marriott, and M. Odersky. Building visual language parsers. InProc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing (CHI)pages 118–125. ACM Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 118–125. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    K. Marriott and B. Meyer. On the classification of visual languages by grammar hierarchies.Journal of Visual Languages and Computing8(4):375–402, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    E.W. Mayr. An algorithm for the general petri net reachability problem.SIAM Journal of Computing13, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Rosenfeld. Array and web grammars: An overview. In A. Lindenmayer and G. Rosenberg, editorsAutomata Languages and Development.North-Holland, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. Wittenburg. Adventures in multidimensional parsing: Cycles and disorders. InInternational Workshop on Parsing Technologiespages 192–199. Association for computational linguistics and Tilburg University, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    K. Wittenburg. Predictive parsing for unordered relational languages. In H. Bunt and M. Tomita, editorsRecent Advances in Parsing Technologypages 385–407. Kluwer, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Wittenburg and L. Weitzman. Visual grammars and incremental parsing for interface languages. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languagespages 111–118. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Marriott
  • Bernd Meyer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations