[tei-council] Chapter 19 - Graphs, networks, and Trees

[Lou's Laptop]

Brett Zamir wrote:
> *
>
> 19.1 Graphs and Digraphs
> *
> 1) For the line, "The <att>degree</att> attribute on the <gi>node</gi> 
> elements record the number of arcs that are *incident with* that 
> node.", can "incident with" be used with nodes as well as arcs 
> (instead of "adjacent with")? If so, should this definition be altered 
> to reflect that?: "Each node in an arc of an undirected graph is said 
> to be <term>incident</term> with that arc".
>
Not according to the definitions for "incident" and "adjacent" given in 
the text.



> 2) For the example with "<node xml:id="LAX4" inDegree="1" 
> outDegree="1">", might the explanation explain inDegree and outDegree 
> here?
>

OK, added a sentence
> *19.1.1 Transition Networks
> *
> For the chart with The Old Man Come (Images/graph3.jpg), shouldn't one 
> of these (the top one I think) be "Comes" instead of "Come"?
>

Drat. That means redrawing the picture! I'll see what we can do....
> *19.1.2 Family Trees
> *
> For <node value>'s such as "http://example.com/russell-fs/tei/kr1", is 
> this format specified because the feature structure it targets must 
> have an independent file on each such person?
No. The concept of "file" doesnt apply here (there must be an 
independent feature structure, of course) -- it could just as well be 
http://example.com/russell-fs/tei/persons.xml#kr1
for example
>
> *19.2 Trees
> *
> Is the line, "Finally, we permit a node to be specified as following 
> other nodes, which (when its parent is ordered) it would be assumed to 
> precede, giving rise to crossing arcs." correct? Should it be "assumed 
> to follow"?
>
No, I don't think so, unless I misunderstand. The point is that even if 
the parent of a node claims it is ordered, and therefore that if node A 
follows node B (in the XML sense), then B precedes A, you can still say 
no, on the contrary, A actually precedes B.