Instantiation of Jerboa Rule Schemes, a Set-based Explanation

Romain Pascual

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Instantiation of Jerboa Rule Schemes, a Set-based Explanation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A rule scheme is instantiated by relabeling both sides with one orbit graph, replacing categorical machinery with set operations.

desk verdict Honest, clearly-written tutorial that repackages the author's own categorical machinery in set terms; the central equivalence is unproven and one formal definition is corrupted, but it is a useful teaching companion. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15986 v1 pith:Q5FKUHVN submitted 2024-11-24 cs.CG

Romain Pascual This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CG

keywords GraphrewritingRuleinstantiationTopology-basedgeometricmodelingGeneralizedmapsSet-basedexplanationJerboaRelabelingfunctionsOrbittypes

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that instantiating a Jerboa rule scheme—a compact, folded graph-rewriting rule parameterized by a topological orbit type—can be explained with elementary set operations. The construction instantiates the left and right sides of the scheme with the same orbit graph, using relabeling functions derived from the orbit types that decorate the scheme's nodes. The result is a concrete graph-transformation rule $\iota_{\langle o\rangle}(L,O)\to \iota_{\langle o\rangle}(R,O)$ that reproduces the rules Jerboa's categorical machinery produces. This matters because designers of geometric modeling operations could then understand rule-scheme instantiation without mastering the category-theoretic framework. If correct, the paper gives a lightweight, checkable account of what Jerboa's rule editor does.

What carries the argument

Relabeling functions and orbit types. A relabeling function is a partial injective map $f\colon \{0,\dots,n\}\to\{0,\dots,n\}\cup\{\_\}$, written as an orbit-type rewriting $\langle o\rangle\mapsto \langle o'\rangle$; applying it to an orbit graph deletes links whose label maps to $\_$ and renames surviving links. Orbit types name the topological cells of a generalized map. These carry the whole instantiation: decorating each node of a graph scheme with an orbit type fixes a relabeling function, and instantiating nodes and arcs by copying the orbit graph and linking copies of the same dart reproduces the explicit rule.

What would settle it

Instantiate the rule scheme of Fig. 5b with a sewn $\langle 0,2\rangle$-orbit (the four-dart configuration of Fig. 6d), as the paper does, and check whether the resulting rule coincides with Fig. 4b and whether the RHS is a subgraph of a valid 2-Gmap; if the relabeled nodes generate links that violate the incidence or cycle constraints, the set-theoretic construction is not preserving Gmap structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a rule scheme $L^{\langle o\rangle}\to R$ is instantiated by instantiating both $L$ and $R$ with the same orbit $O$ of type $\langle o\rangle$, yielding $\iota_{\langle o\rangle}(L,O)\to \iota_{\langle o\rangle}(R,O)$. Node instantiation applies the relabeling function $\langle o\rangle\mapsto \langle o_\mu\rangle$ to $O$; arc instantiation adds an $i$-link between the two relabeled images of each dart of $O$; the whole scheme is the union of these pieces. The vertex-insertion example shows one folded scheme with parameter $\langle 2\rangle$ recovering the free-edge and sewn-edge rules when unfolded with two different orbit graphs. The author asserts that this set-theoretic construction faithfully explains the categorical instantiation of Jerboa rule schemes, drawing on the closeness between presheaf topoi and sets.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that copying and relabeling one orbit graph captures exactly what Jerboa's category-based engine does, including the hidden constraints that keep the resulting graph a valid topological object; if that equivalence fails, the report is explaining a construction Jerboa may not actually use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A rule scheme can be unfolded into a concrete graph-transformation rule from the orbit graph at its hook alone, with no categorical machinery required.
The construction is directly implementable with graph copying and relabeling, so the same rule schemes can be instantiated in any system that manipulates labeled graphs.
Because instantiation copies the orbit graph once per node and links corresponding darts, the size and shape of the resulting rule are computable from the orbit graph and the scheme's decorations.
The vertex-insertion example shows that a single folded scheme with parameter $\langle 2\rangle$ reproduces both the free-edge and sewn-edge rules, so set-theoretic instantiation preserves the genericity rule schemes exist for.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the equivalence with the categorical construction holds, the set-theoretic version gives a cheap way to simulate rule-scheme behavior on small orbit graphs before committing to a full categorical engine.
The same relabeling machinery could be applied to any typed graph-rewriting formalism that decorates nodes with orbit-like types, potentially extending rule schemes beyond generalized maps.
The report explicitly leaves the Gmap-subgraph constraints to [11]; extracting those constraints as set-theoretic conditions on relabeling functions would let instantiation itself certify that its output is a valid topological object.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Thanks for the Pith Report. I read the paper, and I largely agree with your take, with one caveat: I think you are slightly harsh on novelty. There is real value in a working set-theoretic presentation of rule scheme instantiation, even if every definition is quoted from [10] and [11]. The report is explicitly pedagogical, and it succeeds at that level. The examples (vertex insertion, free vs. sewn edges) are worked in enough detail that a non-categorical reader can come away with a genuine feel for what instantiating a scheme does. The labeling of definitions as 'from [10]' is honest, and the author is upfront about deferring the Gmap-validity constraints to [11]. That is not circularity; it is a scope statement.

The soft spots are real. The load-bearing claim is that this set-theoretic construction is what Jerboa actually implements. That is asserted, not shown. Section 5.3 defines a rule instantiation as ι(L,O)→ι(R,O) with no DPO interface, even though Section 1 reminds us that standard DPO rules include an interface I. Without I, the rewrite semantics is underdetermined—you do not know which parts are preserved. The author may intend the interface to be implicit, but it is not in the report. Second, the last paragraph of Section 5.3 admits the construction can produce non-Gmap subgraphs and punts the needed constraints to [11]. Those constraints are part of what makes an instantiation valid in Jerboa, so the set-theoretic construction we are given can produce rules the categorical one rejects. Third, Definition 5.2 is corrupted in the preprint—the equation is unreadable. That is a blocking defect for a formal document, though clearly a rendering issue.

On the citation pattern: heavy self-citation is appropriate here because this is exposition of the author's own framework. No problem.

Who is this for? Practitioners and students who want an accessible entry to Jerboa's rule scheme instantiation, and perhaps researchers who want a quick refresher on the construction. It is not a research contribution. With the corrupted formula fixed and the DPO interface either added or explicitly identified as implicit, it could be a useful tutorial paper. I would send it to a workshop or a journal's education track. A serious referee should see it, but the referee's main job would be to verify the intended equivalence—which is precisely what the paper does not deliver.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a set-theoretic instantiation of Jerboa rule schemes, based on relabeling functions and orbit types, as a lightweight alternative to the categorical formulation in [11]. It reviews generalized maps and orbits, defines relabeling functions, graph and rule schemes, and then gives constructions for node, arc, and rule instantiation. The central claim, stated in Section 5.3, is that instantiating both sides of a rule scheme L⟨o⟩→R with the same orbit O yields the graph transformation rule that Jerboa's categorical instantiation produces.

Significance. The report has clear expository value: it connects the categorical machinery of [11] to concrete examples such as vertex insertion on free and sewn edges, and the relabeling-function formalism is explained with helpful figures. However, the paper's main claim is that the set-theoretic construction faithfully explains the categorical instantiation used in Jerboa, and that claim is not backed by a proof or even a formal comparison. If the equivalence were established, the paper would be a useful companion to [11]; as it stands, the contribution is an unverified alternative description.

major comments (5)

[Section 5.3 (rule instantiation)] The central equivalence claim is not established. The paper states that ι⟨o⟩(L,O)→ι⟨o⟩(R,O) is the graph transformation rule obtained by instantiating a rule scheme, and the abstract and Section 6 invoke "the intrinsic proximity between presheaf topoi and sets", but no theorem or precise comparison with the categorical instantiation of [11] is given. Because that equivalence is the paper's main claim, please add a formal statement and proof of the correspondence, or explicitly present the construction as an informal exposition that may differ from the implementation in Jerboa.
[Section 5.3, Definition 4.2] The instantiated rule is presented as a single arrow between L and R, with no DPO interface I. As the introduction notes, DPO rules include an interface that determines preserved and deleted parts, and [11] uses compositional DPO semantics. Without an interface, the set-theoretic construction does not determine the same rewrite system as the categorical instantiation; the rule should be a diagram ι⟨o⟩(L,O) ← I → ι⟨o⟩(R,O), or the paper should explain why the interface is unnecessary in this setting.
[Definition 5.2] The displayed equation for arc instantiation is corrupted by unreadable placeholder tokens such as "⌟⟨⟨⟪rl⟫l⟩⟩...". As written, the formal definition cannot be checked. Please re-typeset the equation and restate the construction of ι⟨o⟩(G,O) with standard notation.
[Section 5.3, final paragraph] The paper concedes that an instantiated graph scheme "might never be a subgraph of a Gmap" and defers the needed validity constraints to [11]. Those constraints are part of what makes an instantiation valid in Jerboa, so the set-theoretic construction can generate rules that the categorical construction rejects. This gap must be closed if the paper claims to explain the actual instantiation used in Jerboa.
[Section 5.3, hook] The hook mechanism is informal. The paper states that the orbit type ⟨o⟩ is determined by a hook node, but no formal definition of a hook or proof of uniqueness is given. Since the choice of O is central to the instantiation procedure, the construction is underspecified for a rule scheme with several LHS nodes unless the hook is made part of the rule scheme definition.

minor comments (5)

[Definition 2.1] The cycle constraint contains the string "/Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒", apparently a corrupted implication symbol; please correct it.
[Section 2.2] The cell types for vertices and faces are stated inconsistently: the text first says an ⟨1,2⟩-orbit defines a vertex, but then lists vertices as ⟨0,1⟩-orbits and faces as ⟨1,2⟩-orbits; align these statements with Definition 2.2 and the caption of Figure 2.
[Figure 2] The caption order for the cell subfigures is confusing, with (d), (f), and (g) referring to different orbit types; please relabel or reorder the subfigures consistently with the surrounding text.
[Definition 4.2] The arrow in the rule scheme notation appears as "/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne→" in several places, presumably from a LaTeX macro rendering failure; this should be fixed throughout.
[References] The paper repeatedly defers key constraints to [11] without summarizing them; since the report claims to be self-contained, at least a precise statement or a concise summary of those constraints would improve readability and checkability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the set-theoretic construction is explicitly defined, and the equivalence to Jerboa's categorical instantiation is an asserted and deferred claim, not a derived result that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an expository construction rather than a predictive derivation. Definitions 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 are explicitly quoted from the author's prior work ([10]), and Section 5.3 defines rule instantiation by composing those node and arc instantiations. There is no fitted parameter, no empirical constant, and no quantity that is 'predicted' after being used as input. The examples in Section 5.3 are consistency checks: they show that instantiating the Fig. 5(b) scheme with the orbit graphs of Figs. 6(a) and 6(d) yields graphs isomorphic to the previously displayed rules. That is a demonstration that the definition reproduces the intended examples, not a circular derivation. The paper does assert, in the abstract and Section 6, that the set-theoretic description is faithful to the categorical framework of [11] via an 'intrinsic proximity between presheaf topoi and sets,' and it defers the Gmap-validity constraints to [11]: 'These constraints are beyond the scope of this report but are detailed in [11].' This is a missing proof or evidence gap, and the printed Definition 5.2 is corrupted so the arc-instantiation construction cannot be fully checked from the preprint; however, these are unsupported or omitted justifications, not circular reductions. Citations to the author's own prior work are present and could be load-bearing for the equivalence claim, but the report does not reduce its central claim to those citations by construction: the set-theoretic definitions are stated explicitly and could in principle be checked against [11] or an implementation. Under the rule that a non-finding is appropriate when definitions are explicit and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The report's central construction relies on several unproved premises: the Gmap-as-graph encoding from [4] and [11]; the relabeling-function and scheme framework from [10]; the informal hook mechanism; the deferred constraints that ensure instantiations are Gmap subgraphs; and the asserted proximity between presheaf topoi and sets that is supposed to make the set-based version faithful. No free parameters or fitted values are involved.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Generalized maps are exactly the graphs satisfying the incidence and cycle constraints of Definition 2.1.
Section 2.1 defines Gmaps this way, citing [4] and [11], but does not prove the encoding is complete or that every such graph comes from a Gmap.
domain assumption Relabeling functions and graph/rule schemes (Definitions 4.1 and 4.2) formalize Jerboa's rule schemes.
Definitions are quoted as 'from [10]'; the report assumes this formalization is the one Jerboa uses.
ad hoc to paper The intrinsic proximity between presheaf topoi and sets guarantees faithfulness of the set-based instantiation.
Invoked in the abstract and Section 6 without proof or a formal correspondence theorem to [11].
domain assumption The Gmap incidence constraint implies that a match can be reconstructed from one dart per connected component of the LHS.
Section 3 asserts this to justify applying rules by selecting a single dart; no proof is provided.
domain assumption Additional constraints (deferred to [11]) ensure instantiations of graph schemes are subgraphs of some Gmap.
Section 5.3 explicitly says these constraints are 'beyond the scope of this report but are detailed in [11]'.

invented entities (1)

hook
purpose: An LHS node that determines the orbit type used to instantiate a rule scheme and indicates where the operation occurs.
Introduced in Section 5.3 informally; no external validation or falsifiable prediction is provided, and its definition is not part of the formal notation of Definitions 4.2 or 5.1-5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instantiation of Jerboa Rule Schemes, a Set-based Explanation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5FKUHVN

@misc{pith2026241115986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instantiation of Jerboa Rule Schemes, a Set-based Explanation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5FKUHVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15986}
}

abstract

This report presents a set-theoretic framework for the instantiation of rule schemes in the Jerboa platform, a tool for developing domain-specific geometric modelers. Jerboa enables the design of geometric modeling operations as graph transformation rules generalized to rule schemes for genericity over the topological content of the operations. Current approaches to algebraic graph transformations are typically described within a finitary $\mathcal{M}$-adhesive category (where $\mathcal{M}$ is a suitable system of monomorphisms), employing compositional double-pushout (DPO) semantics for rewriting. In this report, we propose a lightweight, set-theoretic description that exploits the proximity between presheaf topoi and sets to provide an explanation that does not rely on extensive theoretical background. The proposed method simplifies the formal description of modeling operations to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and their practical application in geometric modeling. The framework offers a complementary perspective to categorical approaches at the foundation of Jerboa.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15986 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Variations of topology and geometry: (a) an cube, (b) same topology as (a) but with a different geometry, and (c) same geometry as (a) but with a different topology. Vertices correspond to 0-dimensional cells, edges link vertices and form 1-dimensional cells, and faces are 2-dimensional cells bordered by edges. In higher dimensions, i-dimensional cells are enclosed by (i − 1)-dimensional cells. For short, i-dimensio… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Gmap construction: (a) 2D object, (b) darts (●), (c) 0-arcs (● ●), (d) 1-arcs (● ●), (e) 2-arcs (● ●). Cells: (f) ⟨1, 2⟩-orbit (vertices), (g) ⟨0, 2⟩-orbit (edges), (d) ⟨0, 1⟩-orbit (faces). 2.2 Topological Cells and Orbits We consider an n-Gmap G. The topological cells (vertices, edges, faces, . . . ) of the associated geometric object are extracted by graph traversal using links of specific dimensions. These subgr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Embeddings: (a) embedded Gmap, (b) position ∶⟨1, 2⟩ → Point3, (c) color ∶⟨0, 1⟩ → ColorRGB. how geometric information can be added using embedding functions. These functions assign data such as positions or colors to topological cells, akin to the geometric buffers of a mesh. For instance, vertex positions (on 0-cells) or face colors (on 2-cells) provide enough information for the visualization of polyhedral objects… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Graph transformation rules for the vertex insertion. Graph transformation rule for the vertex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: rule schemes for the vertex insertion: (a) by folding the 2-links and (b) both the 0- and 2-links. a b (a) a1 b1 (b) a0 b0 (c) c d e f (d) c1 d1 e1 f1 (e) c0 d0 e0 f0 (f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Relabeling functions applied to orbit graphs: orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Instantiating the nodes of a graph scheme: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Instantiating an arc of a graph scheme: (a) graph scheme with an arc between two nodes, (b) instantiation with the orbit graph of Fig. 6a, and (c) instantiation with the orbit graph of Fig. 6d. ⟨o⟩ ↦ ⟨o n1 ⟩ = {0 ↦ 1, 2 ↦ 2}. These functions, already shown in [PITH_FU…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[10]

Inferring topological operations on generalized maps: Application to subdivision schemes

R. Pascual, H. Belhaouari, A. Arnould, and P. Le Gall. “Inferring topological operations on generalized maps: Application to subdivision schemes”. In:Graphics and Visual Computing6 (2022), p. 200049.issn: 2666-6294. doi: 10.1016/j.gvc.2022.200049

work page arXiv 2022
[11]

Topological consistency preservation with graph transformation schemes

R. Pascual, P. Le Gall, A. Arnould, and H. Belhaouari. “Topological consistency preservation with graph transformation schemes”. In:Science of Computer Programming214 (2022), p. 102728. issn: 0167-6423. doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2021.102728

arXiv 2022
[1]

Preserving consistency in geometric modeling with graph transformations

A. Arnould, H. Belhaouari, T. Bellet, P. Le Gall, and R. Pascual. “Preserving consistency in geometric modeling with graph transformations”. In:Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 32.3 (2022). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–347.issn: 0960-1295, 1469-8072.doi: 10.1017/S0960129522000226

work page doi:10.1017/s0960129522000226 2022
[2]

Compositionality of Rewriting Rules with Conditions

N. Behr and J. Krivine. “Compositionality of Rewriting Rules with Conditions”. In:Compo- sitionality 3.2 (2021), p. 51. issn: 2631-4444. doi: 10.32408/compositionality- 3- 2 . url: https://compositionality-journal.org/

work page doi:10.32408/compositionality- 2021
[3]

Jerboa: A Graph Transformation Library for Topology-Based Geometric Modeling

H. Belhaouari, A. Arnould, P. Le Gall, and T. Bellet. “Jerboa: A Graph Transformation Library for Topology-Based Geometric Modeling”. In:Graph Transformation. ICGT 2014. Ed. by H. Giese and B. König. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 269–284.isbn: 978-3-319-09108-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09108-2_18

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09108-2_18 2014
[4]

Damiand and P

G. Damiand and P. Lienhardt.Combinatorial Maps: Efficient Data Structures for Computer Graphics and Image Processing. CRC Press, 2014. 407 pp.isbn: 978-1-4822-0652-4

work page 2014
[5]

Formal specification and proofs for the topology and classification of combinatorial surfaces

C. Dehlinger and J.-F. Dufourd. “Formal specification and proofs for the topology and classification of combinatorial surfaces”. In:Computational Geometry47.9 (2014), pp. 869–890.issn: 0925-7721. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2014.04.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2014.04.007 2014
[6]

Ehrig, K

H. Ehrig, K. Ehrig, U. Prange, and G. Taentzer.Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, 2006.isbn: 978-3-540-31187-4. doi: 10.1007/3-540-31188-2

doi:10.1007/3-540-31188-2 2006

Show all 12 references

[7]

Heckel and G

R. Heckel and G. Taentzer.Graph Transformation for Software Engineers: With Applications to Model-Based Development and Domain-Specific Language Engineering. Cham: Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2020.isbn: 978-3-030-43915-6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-43916-3

2020 doi
[8]

Topological models for boundary representation: a comparison with n-dimensional generalized maps

P. Lienhardt. “Topological models for boundary representation: a comparison with n-dimensional generalized maps”. In:Computer-Aided Design23.11 (1991), pp. 59–82.issn: 0010-4485. doi: 10.1016/0010-4485(91)90100-B

1991 doi
[9]

Inference of graph transformation rules for the design of geometric modeling opera- tions

R. Pascual. “Inference of graph transformation rules for the design of geometric modeling opera- tions”. PhD thesis. Université Paris-Saclay, 2022.url: https://www.theses.fr/2022UPAST146

2022
[12]

Edge-Based Data Structures for Solid Modeling in Curved-Surface Environments

K. Weiler. “Edge-Based Data Structures for Solid Modeling in Curved-Surface Environments”. In: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications5.1 (1985), pp. 21–40. issn: 1558-1756. doi: 10.1109/MCG.1985.276271. 11

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

Inferring topological operations on generalized maps: Application to subdivision schemes

R. Pascual, H. Belhaouari, A. Arnould, and P. Le Gall. “Inferring topological operations on generalized maps: Application to subdivision schemes”. In:Graphics and Visual Computing6 (2022), p. 200049.issn: 2666-6294. doi: 10.1016/j.gvc.2022.200049

work page arXiv 2022

[2] [11]

Topological consistency preservation with graph transformation schemes

R. Pascual, P. Le Gall, A. Arnould, and H. Belhaouari. “Topological consistency preservation with graph transformation schemes”. In:Science of Computer Programming214 (2022), p. 102728. issn: 0167-6423. doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2021.102728

arXiv 2022

[3] [1]

Preserving consistency in geometric modeling with graph transformations

A. Arnould, H. Belhaouari, T. Bellet, P. Le Gall, and R. Pascual. “Preserving consistency in geometric modeling with graph transformations”. In:Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 32.3 (2022). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–347.issn: 0960-1295, 1469-8072.doi: 10.1017/S0960129522000226

work page doi:10.1017/s0960129522000226 2022

[4] [2]

Compositionality of Rewriting Rules with Conditions

N. Behr and J. Krivine. “Compositionality of Rewriting Rules with Conditions”. In:Compo- sitionality 3.2 (2021), p. 51. issn: 2631-4444. doi: 10.32408/compositionality- 3- 2 . url: https://compositionality-journal.org/

work page doi:10.32408/compositionality- 2021

[5] [3]

Jerboa: A Graph Transformation Library for Topology-Based Geometric Modeling

H. Belhaouari, A. Arnould, P. Le Gall, and T. Bellet. “Jerboa: A Graph Transformation Library for Topology-Based Geometric Modeling”. In:Graph Transformation. ICGT 2014. Ed. by H. Giese and B. König. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 269–284.isbn: 978-3-319-09108-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09108-2_18

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09108-2_18 2014

[6] [4]

Damiand and P

G. Damiand and P. Lienhardt.Combinatorial Maps: Efficient Data Structures for Computer Graphics and Image Processing. CRC Press, 2014. 407 pp.isbn: 978-1-4822-0652-4

work page 2014

[7] [5]

Formal specification and proofs for the topology and classification of combinatorial surfaces

C. Dehlinger and J.-F. Dufourd. “Formal specification and proofs for the topology and classification of combinatorial surfaces”. In:Computational Geometry47.9 (2014), pp. 869–890.issn: 0925-7721. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2014.04.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2014.04.007 2014

[8] [6]

Ehrig, K

H. Ehrig, K. Ehrig, U. Prange, and G. Taentzer.Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, 2006.isbn: 978-3-540-31187-4. doi: 10.1007/3-540-31188-2

doi:10.1007/3-540-31188-2 2006