Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...> 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... ;-)
|
