Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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 edge. 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. Cheers, Tom Passin
|
