Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 21:39:33 -0400
Wayne Steele asked -
> Why would someone prefer an edge-based model to a node-based one?
> or vice-versa?
> IMHO, the concepts of a "node" and a "tree" seem pretty straightforward;
> dealing with edge-based abstractions is about as comfortable as reading a
> book turned upside-down.
Well, I'm definitely no expert on this. What I've seen so far is that a
node gives you a place to have branches. That is, an edge comes in and many
edges can go out. Also, a node seems like a good place to hold a value. If
you like to make a distinction between a (abstract?) thing and its value,
then an edge can the the thing and the node can hold its value. Now if you
were to say that a set or list of elements could also be the value of the
thing, it would make even more sense that a node is for holding a value.
This is a little different from simply reversing nodes and edges, because in
a normal graph, edges can only branch at nodes, not in the middle of an
When I did the playing around I mentioned in my previous post, I got the
impression that using an edge-labeled graph was very simple and clean. I
can't make any other claims because I don't know enough about it.