Bob Harris wrote: > I thought we went through this fruitless discussion on what > constitutes a small world already. I use the term in the same sense as > Barabasi, Strogatz and Kleinberg. Kleinberg is the only one who has a > tight, formal definition (albeit in a highly idealized grid), but if > that's too restrictive for your taste,
The only thing these three models have in common is the small diameter and high clustering. > I'm happy to include any > unstructured overlay where the edges are selected at random and the > number of edges per node is relatively small in number. Small-world network is a graph-theoretic term, it has nothing to do with overlays. You can use these terms to describe the graph formed by an overlay, regardless if it is structured or not. > I didn't know what a clustering coefficient was. I looked it up and it > seems like a pointless metric. If you are lumping CAN/Chord/Pastry > with Gnutella/Freenet, you are doing something wrong. Just because a term applies to two things doesn't mean they are the same. I would "lump" them all as distributed. What is wrong with that? Where would use place "Symphony" [1] btw? A very structured DHT, but based directly on Kleinberg's model. // oskar [1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~manku/papers/03usits-symphony/ _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
