Talk:Graph drawing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, High-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
High Priority
 Field: Discrete mathematics
WikiProject Computer science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

External link: Pigale library includes the fastest implementation of the planarity testing and embedding algorithms (cf Stop minding your P’s and Q’s : implementing fast and simple DFS-based planarity and embedding algorithm, J.M. Boyer, P.F. Cortese, M. Patrignani, and G. Di Battista, in Graph Drawing, volume 2912 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004, pages 25–36). Is it sufficient for inclusion in the list? pom 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the standards should be; I am more sure that the list should be short and annotated rather than long and undifferentiated. I only see 541 ghits for pigale (with "graph" thrown in to eliminate the chaff) vs 2.2 million for graphviz (or still 1M if you throw in "graph" to make it more a fair comparison), so it is clearly less notable but still somewhat notable. The question for me is, if we limited the number of links to say six, is Pigale really among the six most important graph drawing links on the web? —David Eppstein 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The two softwares are intrinsicaly differents in their goals: graphviz is application oriented although Pigale is an academic , research oriented software. You won't find a Fary drawing on a linear grid size or a visibility drawing in Graphviz. pom 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May I rename this article to Graph layout(reversing the redirect)? I believe (but may be mistaken) that this is the common term for what is being described here. Rp 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NO. There is an annual conference and several books with "Graph Drawing" in their title. Layout may be used in some contexts, but drawing is the proper title to use for this topic. —David Eppstein 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice (with Google) that "graph drawing" is indeed a popular term, but "graph layout" is about 4 times as popular. So it should at least be in the first sentence. Rp (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Try Google scholar. Graph drawing: 8000 hits. Graph layout: 4000 hits. More to the point, to me, "layout" describes only the vertex placement and edge routing parts of graph drawing, but not the visual appearance of the vertices, edges, and crossings, all of which would be included in graph drawing. On the other hand, graph layout is relevant in VLSI design, in which visual appearance is irrelevant. So they are two highly overlapping but distinct subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense; so the article should probably make this distinction clear. Rp (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

The image is not good. It's a tree (which always can be drawn planar), but it's not drawn planar. We should have a planar graph with lots of edges, possibly with relation to the four color theorem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.45.95 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Types of graph drawing: ?[edit]

This section is misplaced, I think. It interprets the title as indicating the result, rather than the activity. Types of diagrams are discussed elsewhere (see e.g. diagram). Rp (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "applications" because it's less about different ways of drawing graphs and more about what the purpose of the drawing is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe it shouldn't be in here at all. A link to diagram or some such page should replace it. Rp (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Many types of diagrams are not graph drawings, but those ones are. I think the only reasonable choice for "some such page" is the one here. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for tool links[edit]

What software can be included here? What disqualifies, say, Gephi, that dioesn't disaqualify, say, MSAGL? Let's jot down some explicit criteria here. Rp (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)