|
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
—awrightson@hedra.com
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps.
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
I share Bernard's concern about the kind of graph we end up with, because an ISO standard is for everyone, not just for current implementers. It would be good to be able to use established mathematical techniques to gain assurance that the RM graph has nice rather than nasty properties for future implementers.
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps.
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
I share Bernard's concern about the kind of graph we end up with, because an ISO standard is for everyone, not just for current implementers. It would be good to be able to use established mathematical techniques to gain assurance that the RM graph has nice rather than nasty properties for future implementers.
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps.
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
I share Bernard's concern about the kind of graph we end up with, because an ISO standard is for everyone, not just for current implementers. It would be good to be able to use established mathematical techniques to gain assurance that the RM graph has nice rather than nasty properties for future implementers.
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps.
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
I share Bernard's concern about the kind of graph we end up with, because an ISO standard is for everyone, not just for current implementers. It would be good to be able to use established mathematical techniques to gain assurance that the RM graph has nice rather than nasty properties for future implementers.
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps.
parid0026
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:32:15
I share Bernard's concern about the kind of graph we end up with, because an ISO standard is for everyone, not just for current implementers. It would be good to be able to use established mathematical techniques to gain assurance that the RM graph has nice rather than nasty properties for future implementers.
parid0026
|
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:17:10
In a well-formed topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented connectedness of two nodes, and
every node is one of the two endpoints of zero or more arcs.
In a topic map graph, every arc is a typed, oriented relationship between two nodes.
Loops or "self-loops" are not permitted for arcs in the topic map graph. Thus, every node serves only
as one end of any arc, although it may serve as the endpoint of no arcs.
I deleted "well formed" on the basis of my earlier comments on parid0484. I don't think it is necessary to invent neologisms to avoid implying data structures. "Relationship between" serves just as well and does not imply any data structure. Less jarring to read. I think loop or "self-loop" is the term we want from graph theory to say that a node may serve as only one end point of an arc. Seems easier to just say that, although I am not sure my prose is any more readable than the original. More explicit perhaps. |