Re: Use of the term "hierarchy"

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:42:20 -0400
Message-Id: <6pi3u2-3dh.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>


Marshall Spight wrote:

> Kenneth Downs wrote:

>> Marshall  Spight wrote:
>> >
>> > Sure. We've been discussing this a lot. There was even a thread
>> > I started about a month ago called (IIRC) Three Kinds of Logical Trees.
>> >
>> > Since then, I've been referring to these as homogeneous trees, and
>> > static heterogeneous trees. There are also dynamic heterogeneous trees,
>> > like parse trees.
>>
>> I did not catch in that thread the specific example i gave of the
>> employees. Should I reread the thread?

>
> Perhaps so.
>
> I said:
> "homogeneous tree"
> All nodes are the same type, tree has varying structure
> [...]
> Examples:
> homogeneous: org chart. Every node is a person record, but the
> structure of the organization may be of whatever form.
>
>
> You said:
> ... employees and their supervisors. This is
> usually presented as a hierarchy of like items.
>
>
> I said "tree"; you said "hierarchy." I said "org chart";
> you said "employees and their supervisors." I said "homogeneous";
> you said "like items."
>
> It seems like we're talking about the same thing.

Actually my thrust was that employees are not homogeneous, but we record them that way for practical reasons. I was aiming at discovering when we use the wrong structures because they are actually easier.

But I shall nevertheless re-read your thread for edification.

> Marshall

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Received on Fri Aug 26 2005 - 15:42:20 CEST

Original text of this message