• To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:42:06 -0500
• Cc: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcS7aMRD1y+nZLAZQb6fILNAtNEDDQAAK7Xw
• Thread-topic: After XQuery, are we done?

Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...> writes:
> 
> 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.

Yes, I was trying to say that a tree is a subset of a graph, you snipped
the context:

> A more important question, which gets to the heart of the matter, is 
> who decides what is a graph, what is a tree, and by what 
> means do they 
> make the interpretation? 

Why do you care about having tree's if you've got a graph?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

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