[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> writes:
>
> Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>
>
> > That's exactly my point, if we ever got to the point where we could
> > manage graphs (in general) I don't think you'd need to care about
> > trees anymore.
>
> We can manage graphs just fine now,
I don't agree. Where are the graph serialization standards? Where are
the best practice algorithms for graph traversal? Where are the
standardized languages for graph transformation? Where are the "graph
databases"?
There are bit's and pieces of these here and there, but nothing that can
be assembled into an overall interoperable graph management capability
that I'm aware of. When these capabilities are available in a
standardized fashion, you've got the complete and assembled semantic
web.
> but in some cases it's
> simply more
> obvious or more efficient or both to take advantage of the
> tree-nature
> of certain graphs and even to limit yourself to tree
> structures. Maybe
> one day someone will discover magic graph processing algorithms that
> outperform tree-based algorithms and are simpler to boot, but
> I kind of
> doubt it.
So do I. And again, that's the point... ;-)
|
