That would be appreciated as well, thanks! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > No way that I have time to make real contributions, but if I see a quick > something to drop into the discussion, I will. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Simone Tripodi > <simonetrip...@apache.org>wrote: > >> Hi Ted, >> >> thanks for your valuable feedback! Please take in consideration that >> contributions are more than welcome, so if you intend sending >> contributions about this algorithms, they would bu much more than >> appreciated! >> >> best, >> -Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Having weights on vertices is quite common. Consider any probability >> > transition network. The weight on each node is the probability of being >> in >> > that state and the weights on the edges are conditional probabilties. >> > >> > Page rank is a related example of having weights on nodes. >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Claudio Squarcella < >> > squar...@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Claudio is aware also about algorithms where weights are associated to >> >>> Vertex - he's preparing his PhD research on graphes - maybe he can >> >>> show us a more long-vision roadmap and evaluate benefits on >> >>> simplifying the design. >> >>> >> >> >> >> yes there are algorithms with weights on vertices. Of course those with >> >> weighted edges (like the ones already implemented) are much more >> widespread >> >> and frequently used, but still we cannot forget about that. Also, >> although >> >> on a secondary level, labels on vertices/edges are kind of important in >> >> many situations (including testing, debugging) where I think it is good >> to >> >> keep them distinct from the standard "toString" method (you might want >> to >> >> represent only a subset of info in the label, etc). >> >> >> >> Matthew Pocock suggested an alternative approach back in the days of >> >> weight abstraction: >> >> >> >> * the graph itself is extremely simple and naked: no weights/labels on >> >> vertices/edges; >> >> * all properties are stored in some external structure, which I >> >> imagine composed of associative maps (Map<Edge, Weight>, etc etc). >> >> >> >> He motivated the idea with a "personal use case": often graphs are used >> >> and reused with the same structure but different weights (and/or labels, >> >> etc). Now if James' question becomes a second use case, maybe it's the >> >> right time to exhume that idea ;) >> >> >> >> Ciao, >> >> Claudio >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Claudio Squarcella >> >> PhD student at Roma Tre University >> >> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~**squarcel< >> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel> >> >> http://squarcella.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org< >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
