The "single" graph of copycat82, is a worse than trivial attempt to collapse the prior art - with a lot of clutter, and vagueness. The term "single" graph is absurd, with so many chops, and with such an incoherence among them.
Next, copycat82 piles chaos upon chaos, with its yet other plagiarism. At every turn, it incurs the opposite of what copycat82 attempts (or, implies, advertises):
From E-nets. That is a single-graph. Writes the E-nets formal-listings (text of the procedures, and the names of the token-attributes), within the net figure. This is all of it. That is equivalent to a full-join of VD78 control- and data-graphs, assuming Petri net transitions and data-operators are one-to-one. When they are not one-to-one, the collapsed copycat82 graph is chaotic.
With real examples, when the data-operators and (Petri net) control-events are not one-to-one, there will be an explosion in the combined graph size, with no further meaning represented.
(and when multiple-instances of the same data-operator (procedure) rewritten all around the graph, a potential inconsistency exists, as we know from relational database-theory - as already known in 1970s)
(data and/or data-operators must have an instance, to inform. i.e. The unnormalized, full-joined graph, loses such possibility that was available, when there was a federation, with data-graph standing elsewhere.)
(after all, copycat82 does not have any formal list of an example, and all what it does is write the E-nets formal-listings, within the net figure. If everything is only the graph, then when about to use a data-item, an exhaustive-search must be conducted, to find out whether any subnet, somewhere, already uses it.)
Read further about that Lopsided Exhaustive Search to occur in such a "single" graph, throughout its many pieces.
(if ADT-dependency networks are (visibly) represented, at all. The variable/ADT name serves only as a label, similar to VD78 control-transition to data-operator labels. If VD78 was not a single-graph, how is copycat82? By its ignoring that ADT-dependencies graph?)
What is a vague statement, which may mean several things, but only the most trivial sense of it may be true? It is a sign of ignorance. It either ignores the alternatives, or exactly attempts to claim one of those impossible case. Read one of such cases, as committed by copycat82: The absurdity about "Postponeability" of Data.