Hi,
> Apologize but I still don't understand what the benefit is on storing
> nodes/arcs data in the Graph data structure
back to James' first email: any type could be immediately used as
edge/vertex without wrappers, while specific data related to the domain
of graphs (weights, labels) would be handled separately. I actually
think this is useful: back to my days of "DIY Java graphs" I implemented
something similar to what we have now, just to think every time: "why
should I wrap my objects with these markers? I already know my Router is
a Vertex in the graph..."
>  sounds to me like a
> Collection<Integer> where, to know the int value of its elements, have
> to query the data structure, i.e.
>
> Collection<Integer> integerCollection = ...;
> for ( Integer ptr : integerCollection )
> {
> int value = integerCollection.getInt( ptr );
> }
>
> It is weird to me even reading it.
>
> When I started modeling Graph, I had collections in mind  above all
> to simplify its adoption  I would be more than pleased to drop
> Weighted* version of graphs and come back to the previous situation,
> but with the annoying type inference issue fixed.
Here's the way I see it. A Graph<V,E> implementing HasWeightedEdges
would have something like this inside:
Map<E, W> edgeWeights = new HashMap<E, W>();
[... populate map, other methods, etc ...]
// implementing HasWeightedEdges#getEdgeWeight
public W getEdgeWeight(E edge)
{
[... check null etc...]
return edgeWeights.get(edge);
}
>> no, trying to be clearer: you propose to rename Monoid into WeightOperation,
>> which is like renaming Addition into Operation. Or alternatively to call the
>> current *WeightBaseOperations something like *WeightMonoid. In both cases I
>> disagree because I would prefer to keep a clear distinction between single
>> welldefined properties/operations (like Addition or Comparator) and the
>> comprehensive implementation (e.g. DoubleWeightBaseOperations) that
>> implements all the operations it can implement with Doubles.
> OK, concept is clear, I still don't agree on the nomenclature, anyway.
> Actually *WeightBaseOperations describe
> *WeightAdditionalOrderedMonoid, so *BaseOperations doesn't sound self
> explaining.
then let's find a better name, but why *OrderedMonoid? Assume we replace
the whole set of current interfaces (see my comment to the next
paragraph below) with just Addition and Comparable (the latter already
exists of course). There is no need to create another interface to merge
the two (ComparableAddition? OrderedAddition?). Then we have:
public class DoubleWeightOperations
implements Addition, Comparator
{
[...]
}
I would not rename the class to DoubleWeightAddition or even
DoubleWeightComparableAddition. What if later we need to e.g. add a
function that normalizes weights by some factor, or returns the
reciprocal of a weight, etc? With the above code it would suffice to add
new interfaces:
public class DoubleWeightOperations
implements Addition, Comparator, Normalization, Reciprocal
{
[...]
}
>
> Moreover, The Zero interface is the *additional* monoid identity
> element, if someone has to implement the Multiplication Monoid I
> wouldn't expect he implements the One interface wich declares O one()
> method.
> This is why IMHO in the current algebra model, Zero has to be dropped
> and has to be modified in:
That is fine for me. I simply followed pure theory while implementing
that and used all possible granularity. Now looking at our
implementations I think it is save enough to even merge Zero, Semigroup
and Monoid (so that's one step further than your example below) and call
the result Addition so that its role is clear to everybody. Does that
sound good? :)
Claudio
>
> /**
> * semigroup is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together
> with an associative binary operation.
> */
> interface Semigroup<E>
> {
>
> E append( E s1, E s2 );
>
> }
>
> /**
> * A {@link Monoid} is a {@link Semigroup} with an identity value.
> */
> public interface Monoid<E>
> extends Semigroup<M>
> {
>
> E identity();
>
> E inverse( E element );
>
> }
>
> that would continue working for every Monoid specialization. Or not? thoughts?
> Thanks and best,
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Claudio Squarcella
> <squarcel@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 03/03/2012 02:21, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>> first of all: yes, I will play with this stuff as soon as I find the time
>>>> :)
>>> this is scaring... go Orb.io, go! :)
>>>
>>>> constant), but still there is one more step of indirection. So we would
>>>> need
>>>> to test and compare performances, hopefully with acceptable results.
>>> sounds it would be better if you implement that stuff in a branch to
>>> keep both implementations, IMHO
>>
>> sure :)
>>
>>
>>>> * with the current approach: one interface for edgeweighted graphs
>>>> (EdgeWeightedGraph, renaming the current WeightedGraph?), one for
>>>> vertexweighted graphs (VertexWeightedGraph) and maybe even one for
>>>> weights on both edges and vertices (EdgeAndVertexWeightedGraph?) 
>>>> not to talk about their counterparts with labels, etc;
>>>> * with the proposed approach: a Graph would implement
>>>> HasWeightsOnEdges and/or HasWeightsOnVertices  and maybe also
>>>> HasLabelsOnEdges if needed.
>>> do you remember that we reintroduced the WeightedGraph just for the
>>> type inference issue on fluent APIs in Eclipse, do you? ;) It would
>>> have been worked otherwise as well dropping the WeightedGraph and
>>> expressing types only on Vertex/Edges
>>
>> that is right. On the other hand with "HasWeightedEdges" we could drop
>> "WeightedEdge" and so on: one interface in, one out.
>>
>> Or we could even save both approaches as alternative implementations. That
>> is:
>>
>> * a set of interfaces: e.g. HasWeightedEdges#getWeight(edge),
>> HasWeightedVertices#getWeight(vertex), etc.
>> * #1 implementation with external properties: the graph keeps the
>> mapping between edge/vertex and weight, so that any type can be used
>> for edges/vertices
>> * #2 classical implementation: we keep markers like WeightedEdge and
>> WeightedVertex but only the graph knows about them. algorithms keep
>> asking the graph for weights of edges/vertices, and the graph in
>> turn asks the edge/vertex itself (passed as parameter).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>>
>>>> I know that this kind of "mismatch" is not your favourite ;) but would
>>>> you
>>>> really call "Operations" something which is just an "Addition"  or
>>>> viceversa "DoubleWeightAddition" something that might later be expanded
>>>> with
>>>> other operations?
>>> I am confused now: this is what you did in the concrete implementation!
>>
>> no, trying to be clearer: you propose to rename Monoid into WeightOperation,
>> which is like renaming Addition into Operation. Or alternatively to call the
>> current *WeightBaseOperations something like *WeightMonoid. In both cases I
>> disagree because I would prefer to keep a clear distinction between single
>> welldefined properties/operations (like Addition or Comparator) and the
>> comprehensive implementation (e.g. DoubleWeightBaseOperations) that
>> implements all the operations it can implement with Doubles.
>>
>> Hoping we'll converge somewhere, maybe asymptotically ;)
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>> time to sleep, cannot reply anymore, read tomorrow
>>>
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Claudio Squarcella
>>> <squarcel@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> what if that mapping function becomes a responsibility of WeightedGraph
>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>> And more generally, what if any property of vertices and/or edges
is
>>>>>> moved to the containing graph?
>>>>> that would imply that Graph implementations have to implement vertices
>>>>> and/or edges metadata indexing, that would be anyway less performant
>>>>> than accessing directly on metadata contained in current node/arc 
>>>>> just count the number of time you should have to touch the adapted
>>>>> data structures, of course will be at least one more than the actual.
>>>>
>>>> that is absolutely right. Not asymptotically if the implementation is
>>>> good
>>>> (hashmaps are already good enough with their read time which is basically
>>>> constant), but still there is one more step of indirection. So we would
>>>> need
>>>> to test and compare performances, hopefully with acceptable results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We could externalize all different graph properties to appropriate
>>>>>> interfaces (HasWeightsOnEdges, HasLabelsOnVertices, etc) and then
each
>>>>>> algorithm specifies the needed input graph including the subset of
>>>>>> interfaces it needs to implement. We do something like that with
weight
>>>>>> operations already.
>>>>> I am worried that with that approach the number of interfaces would
>>>>> proliferate like pollen during Spring, users  and devs  would get
>>>>> easily lost
>>>>
>>>> but that would happen anyway as soon as we implement an algorithm with
>>>> weights on vertices, right? Here are the options I see:
>>>>
>>>> * with the current approach: one interface for edgeweighted graphs
>>>> (EdgeWeightedGraph, renaming the current WeightedGraph?), one for
>>>> vertexweighted graphs (VertexWeightedGraph) and maybe even one for
>>>> weights on both edges and vertices (EdgeAndVertexWeightedGraph?) 
>>>> not to talk about their counterparts with labels, etc;
>>>> * with the proposed approach: a Graph would implement
>>>> HasWeightsOnEdges and/or HasWeightsOnVertices  and maybe also
>>>> HasLabelsOnEdges if needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> weights are something already complicated for being a simple concept,
>>>>> please apologize for the little offtopic:
>>>>>
>>>>> Zero, name of an element, contains `zero` method to get the zero (it
>>>>> is still confusing to me), Monoid extends Zero and Semigroup  given
>>>>> the use inside graph math, Zero#zero and Semigroup#append can be moved
>>>>> directly to Monoid and rename it as WeightOperation  does it remind
>>>>> you something? :P
>>>>
>>>> I can agree with most of what you say but I would still call the result
>>>> Monoid, or maybe even better Addition  because that is what it is, a
>>>> Monoid representing the sum operation. "WeightOperation" sounds more like
>>>> a
>>>> general "container" which can include Addition, Comparator, and maybe in
>>>> the
>>>> near future Multiplication or who knows what  which again is pretty
>>>> much
>>>> what happens now with the wrappers for Double, Integer, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I know that this kind of "mismatch" is not your favourite ;) but would
>>>> you
>>>> really call "Operations" something which is just an "Addition"  or
>>>> viceversa "DoubleWeightAddition" something that might later be expanded
>>>> with
>>>> other operations?
>>>>
>>>> Ciao and thanks for your feedback!
>>>> Claudio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 10:22 PM, Claudio Squarcella
>>>>> <squarcel@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The weights can be external, too. It's only a function from
edge to
>>>>>>> weight. Your algorithm can take a function for its weights.
The
>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>> library does it similar to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what if that mapping function becomes a responsibility of WeightedGraph
>>>>>> itself? And more generally, what if any property of vertices and/or
>>>>>> edges
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> moved to the containing graph?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could externalize all different graph properties to appropriate
>>>>>> interfaces (HasWeightsOnEdges, HasLabelsOnVertices, etc) and then
each
>>>>>> algorithm specifies the needed input graph including the subset of
>>>>>> interfaces it needs to implement. We do something like that with
weight
>>>>>> operations already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claudio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2012 3:08 PM, "Ted Dunning"<ted.dunning@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<
>>>>>>>> squarcel@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 longvision 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, email: devunsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<
>>>>>>>> devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Claudio Squarcella
>>>>>> PhD student at Roma Tre University
>>>>>> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
>>>>>> http://squarcella.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Claudio Squarcella
>>>> PhD student at Roma Tre University
>>>> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
>>>> http://squarcella.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>> 
>>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>>
>> 
>> Claudio Squarcella
>> PhD student at Roma Tre University
>> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
>> http://squarcella.com/
>>
>>
>> 
>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>
> 
> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>

Claudio Squarcella
PhD student at Roma Tre University
http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
http://squarcella.com/

To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
