[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: After XQuery, are we done?

• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: Burak Emir <Burak.Emir@e...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:59:29 +0200
• Cc: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <417E5FF4.1050305@m...>
• References: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECF31@S...> <417E5FF4.1050305@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040803)

Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>
>
>> I don't get the distinction.  As soon as you've got a graph you've got a
>> tree (or perhaps many trees).
>>
>
> Not necessarily. All trees are graphs but not all graphs are trees. 
> For instance a pure tree can't represent a cycle but a graph can. 
> XML's rule that a node can only have one parent is not a limit of 
> graphs in general.
>
I think he meant a spanning tree, i.e. one that has all the nodes but 
all edges. A graph can have many spanning trees.

This works for undirected edges. For directed, there might not be a 
spanning tree in the mathematical sense, but you can still
get one if you reverse the arrows, like in this one

o -> o <- o

cheers,
Burak

• References:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RELAX NG pluggable type libraries
• Next by Date: Re: When to check entity WFness according to 4.3.2
• Previous by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread