You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(9) 
_{Sep}
(14) 
_{Oct}
(19) 
_{Nov}
(38) 
_{Dec}
(77) 

2004 
_{Jan}
(31) 
_{Feb}
(59) 
_{Mar}
(56) 
_{Apr}
(35) 
_{May}
(79) 
_{Jun}
(90) 
_{Jul}
(50) 
_{Aug}
(141) 
_{Sep}
(56) 
_{Oct}
(132) 
_{Nov}
(78) 
_{Dec}
(158) 
2005 
_{Jan}
(90) 
_{Feb}
(71) 
_{Mar}
(77) 
_{Apr}
(159) 
_{May}
(183) 
_{Jun}
(127) 
_{Jul}
(253) 
_{Aug}
(104) 
_{Sep}
(110) 
_{Oct}
(207) 
_{Nov}
(149) 
_{Dec}
(102) 
2006 
_{Jan}
(92) 
_{Feb}
(165) 
_{Mar}
(214) 
_{Apr}
(227) 
_{May}
(130) 
_{Jun}
(139) 
_{Jul}
(74) 
_{Aug}
(110) 
_{Sep}
(136) 
_{Oct}
(114) 
_{Nov}
(112) 
_{Dec}
(131) 
2007 
_{Jan}
(135) 
_{Feb}
(212) 
_{Mar}
(302) 
_{Apr}
(239) 
_{May}
(210) 
_{Jun}
(163) 
_{Jul}
(181) 
_{Aug}
(288) 
_{Sep}
(134) 
_{Oct}
(228) 
_{Nov}
(177) 
_{Dec}
(106) 
2008 
_{Jan}
(113) 
_{Feb}
(199) 
_{Mar}
(131) 
_{Apr}
(215) 
_{May}
(105) 
_{Jun}
(119) 
_{Jul}
(140) 
_{Aug}
(126) 
_{Sep}
(139) 
_{Oct}
(157) 
_{Nov}
(105) 
_{Dec}
(103) 
2009 
_{Jan}
(185) 
_{Feb}
(181) 
_{Mar}
(201) 
_{Apr}
(221) 
_{May}
(175) 
_{Jun}
(172) 
_{Jul}
(153) 
_{Aug}
(108) 
_{Sep}
(87) 
_{Oct}
(24) 
_{Nov}
(21) 
_{Dec}
(27) 
2010 
_{Jan}
(10) 
_{Feb}
(52) 
_{Mar}
(75) 
_{Apr}
(128) 
_{May}
(150) 
_{Jun}
(110) 
_{Jul}
(71) 
_{Aug}
(75) 
_{Sep}
(65) 
_{Oct}
(88) 
_{Nov}
(95) 
_{Dec}
(55) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(35) 
_{Feb}
(54) 
_{Mar}
(67) 
_{Apr}
(75) 
_{May}
(49) 
_{Jun}
(57) 
_{Jul}
(36) 
_{Aug}
(30) 
_{Sep}
(42) 
_{Oct}
(10) 
_{Nov}
(28) 
_{Dec}
(39) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(70) 
_{Feb}
(20) 
_{Mar}
(32) 
_{Apr}
(65) 
_{May}
(29) 
_{Jun}
(11) 
_{Jul}
(13) 
_{Aug}
(23) 
_{Sep}
(22) 
_{Oct}
(9) 
_{Nov}
(13) 
_{Dec}
(10) 
2013 
_{Jan}
(9) 
_{Feb}
(9) 
_{Mar}
(9) 
_{Apr}
(7) 
_{May}
(7) 
_{Jun}
(2) 
_{Jul}
(10) 
_{Aug}
(2) 
_{Sep}
(6) 
_{Oct}
(5) 
_{Nov}
(8) 
_{Dec}
(3) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(17) 
_{Feb}
(8) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}
(3) 
_{May}

_{Jun}
(6) 
_{Jul}
(6) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}
(1) 
_{Oct}
(2) 
_{Nov}
(3) 
_{Dec}
(2) 
2015 
_{Jan}
(1) 
_{Feb}
(2) 
_{Mar}
(1) 
_{Apr}
(4) 
_{May}
(1) 
_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 

1
(1) 
2
(16) 
3
(11) 
4
(23) 
5
(6) 
6
(13) 
7
(5) 
8
(7) 
9
(15) 
10
(10) 
11
(3) 
12
(13) 
13
(19) 
14

15
(5) 
16
(2) 
17
(21) 
18
(3) 
19
(2) 
20
(15) 
21
(5) 
22
(1) 
23
(10) 
24
(8) 
25
(5) 
26
(7) 
27
(12) 
28
(1) 
29

30






From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 23:45:51

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4266802 By: eflat Aaron: I'm really not clear on exactly what you're doingyou seem to have started halfway through the explanation, and I have no idea what your decision points or goal values mean. But if I correctly understand your question, your basic problem is this: you want to know how to display, as a vertex label, different values associated with a single vertex. In that case, the answer is simple: provide an appropriate Transformer. While JUNG2 makes it easy to create vertices that are represented by (say) Doubles, you can in fact use any object that you like for a vertex. So you can (for example) either assign unique IDs to the vertices, and then use these IDs as keys in a Map, or create vertex objects that have fields for the various properties that you want. In any case you'll need to tell the renderer how to access the value you want for a given vertex object; that's what the Transformer should do. Joshua ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 23:37:20

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4266792 By: k2merlinsix I am trying to display a series of tree's and their values but the values are the same Example: Each of the Rows are Decision Points and each of the columns are Probablility Goal Values:  1.0 1.0  0.75  0.5  1.0 0.75  0.75 [Can go out N Decision Points]  0.5  1.0 0.5  0.75  0.5 I tried creating a Factory to generate the points and it works as long as the points are unique. However I want to display the actual Probability Goal Values. Is there a way I can do this? ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@gm...>  20070417 22:59:58

Bea: Anecdotal evidence suggests that migrating to JUNG2 is actually pretty easy (and results in cleaner code), but it's up to you when you want to do that. (Bear in mind that JUNG 1.x will not be improved further at this point, though.) To address your second question: if the graphs are not strongly connected (in the case of directed graphs), the algorithms will not work, as you've seen. Furthermore, each vertex needs to have at least one outgoing edge. This is why the authority and hub sums are < 1 (they should each be 1). Hope this helps Joshua On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > Thanks a lot!!!!!!! In my next project i will use Jung2 ;P > > I have another question about Hits o Hits Priors, I running with > BarabasiAlbert freescale nets with 15 nodes and 7 edges per vertex more > or less, no parallel edges and i try undirected and directed graphs. The > case is that most of the time I get : > > HITS With Priors scores can not be generrated because the specified graph is > not connected. > Authority Sum: 0.5900456336154054 > HITS With Priors scores can not be generrated because the specified graph is > not connected. > Hub Sum: 0.5925901779146368 > > But the graphs are connected, at least what I know as connected. > > Thanks again, bea. > > > On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > Bea: > > > > Ah, now I understand your problem. The short form is that the > > existing graph implementations (in JUNG 1.x) of getVertices() (and the > > other get() methods) do not guarantee an order of iteration. That is, > > if you get an Iterator for getVertices(), it will give you a > > particular ordering, and if you get another Iterator for the _same > > set_ it may give you a completely different ordering. This is > > basically because the Java Set interface provides no guarantees about > > ordering. > > > > In order to get around this, you basically need a different internal > > data structure that hangs onto the vertices. (For example, if you > > replace a HashMap with a LinkedHashMap, the latter has an order of > > iteration that is guaranteed to be the order in which the elements are > > added.) > > > > In the JUNG 2.0 alpha, we've included graph implementations that > > provide ordering guarantees for their various collections. > > > > Joshua > > > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry if you 've misunderstood my question. I mean, i'm no t judging > > > anything. But I run this algorithm several times with the same graph but > > > different weights and the results changes, and when iI've said are > > > different I mean the order of the nodes with the same number of > connexions, > > > and I thought that maybe there's a reason behind. > > > > > > Nevermind, thank you for answer so fast and overall for this api that is > > > making my project faster ;P > > > Best, bea. > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > > > Beatriz: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like > > > > you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not > > > > sure what you want. > > > > > > > > > > You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis > > > > of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want > > > > something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their > > > > weighted degree. Is that correct? > > > > > > > > Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us > > > > (just using cutandpaste) to show us what order you'd like the > > > > results to be in. > > > > > > > > Joshua > > > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on > > > this > > > > > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > > > > > My Results: > > > > > > > > > > 1. 8 conexions > > > > > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > > > > > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > > > > > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > > > > > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > > > > > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > > > > > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > > > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > > > > > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > > > > > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > > > > > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > > > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > > > > > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > > > > > > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i > don't > > > know > > > > > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bea. > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > > > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > > > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > > > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > > > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > > > > Download DB2 Express C  the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > > > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Jungsupport mailing list > > > > > Jungsupport@... > > > > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jungsupport > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > > > > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > > > PhilosopherAtTall > > > > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > > > Watterson > > > > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > > > organization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > > > > >  > > > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > PhilosopherAtTall > > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > Watterson > > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > organization. > > > > > >  > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > (Donald Rumsfeld)  joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, PhilosopherAtTall It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill Watterson My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any organization. 
From: Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@gm...>  20070417 22:50:49

Thanks a lot!!!!!!! In my next project i will use Jung2 ;P I have another question about Hits o Hits Priors, I running with BarabasiAlbert freescale nets with 15 nodes and 7 edges per vertex more or less, no parallel edges and i try undirected and directed graphs. The case is that most of the time I get : HITS With Priors scores can not be generrated because the specified graph is not connected. Authority Sum: 0.5900456336154054 HITS With Priors scores can not be generrated because the specified graph is not connected. Hub Sum: 0.5925901779146368 But the graphs are connected, at least what I know as connected. Thanks again, bea. On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > Bea: > > Ah, now I understand your problem. The short form is that the > existing graph implementations (in JUNG 1.x) of getVertices() (and the > other get() methods) do not guarantee an order of iteration. That is, > if you get an Iterator for getVertices(), it will give you a > particular ordering, and if you get another Iterator for the _same > set_ it may give you a completely different ordering. This is > basically because the Java Set interface provides no guarantees about > ordering. > > In order to get around this, you basically need a different internal > data structure that hangs onto the vertices. (For example, if you > replace a HashMap with a LinkedHashMap, the latter has an order of > iteration that is guaranteed to be the order in which the elements are > added.) > > In the JUNG 2.0 alpha, we've included graph implementations that > provide ordering guarantees for their various collections. > > Joshua > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > > > Sorry if you 've misunderstood my question. I mean, i'm no t judging > > anything. But I run this algorithm several times with the same graph but > > different weights and the results changes, and when iI've said are > > different I mean the order of the nodes with the same number of > connexions, > > and I thought that maybe there's a reason behind. > > > > Nevermind, thank you for answer so fast and overall for this api that is > > making my project faster ;P > > Best, bea. > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > > Beatriz: > > > > > > I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like > > > you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not > > > sure what you want. > > > > > > > You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis > > > of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want > > > something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their > > > weighted degree. Is that correct? > > > > > > Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us > > > (just using cutandpaste) to show us what order you'd like the > > > results to be in. > > > > > > Joshua > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on > > this > > > > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > > > > My Results: > > > > > > > > 1. 8 conexions > > > > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > > > > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > > > > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > > > > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > > > > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > > > > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > > > > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > > > > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > > > > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > > > > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > > > > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i > don't > > know > > > > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bea. > > > > > > > >  > > > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > > > > > >  > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > > > Download DB2 Express C  the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Jungsupport mailing list > > > > Jungsupport@... > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jungsupport > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > > > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > > PhilosopherAtTall > > > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > > Watterson > > > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > > organization. > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > >  > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > PhilosopherAtTall > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > Watterson > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > organization. >  "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." (Donald Rumsfeld) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 21:29:32

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4266428 By: eflat Brief responses... (a) File I/O would be good. That's one of the aspects of the library that may get some more work, though, so I hate to have you spend time on a tutorial of something that's changing out from under you. :) I'd have to reread the current version of the document to see what we need the most. (b) Yes, we plan to release alpha 2 soon. Hopefully within a couple of weeks. Joshua ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@gm...>  20070417 21:21:13

Bea: Ah, now I understand your problem. The short form is that the existing graph implementations (in JUNG 1.x) of getVertices() (and the other get() methods) do not guarantee an order of iteration. That is, if you get an Iterator for getVertices(), it will give you a particular ordering, and if you get another Iterator for the _same set_ it may give you a completely different ordering. This is basically because the Java Set interface provides no guarantees about ordering. In order to get around this, you basically need a different internal data structure that hangs onto the vertices. (For example, if you replace a HashMap with a LinkedHashMap, the latter has an order of iteration that is guaranteed to be the order in which the elements are added.) In the JUNG 2.0 alpha, we've included graph implementations that provide ordering guarantees for their various collections. Joshua On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > Sorry if you 've misunderstood my question. I mean, i'm no t judging > anything. But I run this algorithm several times with the same graph but > different weights and the results changes, and when iI've said are > different I mean the order of the nodes with the same number of connexions, > and I thought that maybe there's a reason behind. > > Nevermind, thank you for answer so fast and overall for this api that is > making my project faster ;P > Best, bea. > > > On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > Beatriz: > > > > I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like > > you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not > > sure what you want. > > > > You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis > > of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want > > something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their > > weighted degree. Is that correct? > > > > Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us > > (just using cutandpaste) to show us what order you'd like the > > results to be in. > > > > Joshua > > > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on > this > > > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > > > My Results: > > > > > > 1. 8 conexions > > > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > > > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > > > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > > > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > > > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > > > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > > > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > > > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > > > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > > > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i don't > know > > > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bea. > > > > > >  > > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > > >  > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > > Download DB2 Express C  the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Jungsupport mailing list > > > Jungsupport@... > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jungsupport > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > PhilosopherAtTall > > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > Watterson > > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > organization. > > > > > >  > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > (Donald Rumsfeld)  joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, PhilosopherAtTall It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill Watterson My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any organization. 
From: Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@gm...>  20070417 19:21:31

Sorry if you 've misunderstood my question. I mean, i'm no t judging anything. But I run this algorithm several times with the same graph but different weights and the results changes, and when iI've said are different I mean the order of the nodes with the same number of connexions, and I thought that maybe there's a reason behind. Nevermind, thank you for answer so fast and overall for this api that is making my project faster ;P Best, bea. On 4/17/07, Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@...> wrote: > > Beatriz: > > I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like > you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not > sure what you want. You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis > of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want > something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their > weighted degree. Is that correct? > > Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us > (just using cutandpaste) to show us what order you'd like the > results to be in. > > Joshua > > On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on > this > > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > > My Results: > > > > 1. 8 conexions > > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i don't > know > > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > > > Thanks, > > Bea. > > > >  > > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > > (Donald Rumsfeld) > > >  > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C  the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Jungsupport mailing list > > Jungsupport@... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jungsupport > > > > > > >  > joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden > Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, > PhilosopherAtTall > It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill > Watterson > My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any > organization. >  "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." (Donald Rumsfeld) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 19:03:44

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4266126 By: gregbern Hi all a couple points from the perspective of the draft JUNG2.0 tutorial and from the point of view of an exsoftware manager ;). (a) Hi priority items to include in the JUNG2.0 tutorial? File I/O? I've got simple example of vertex colors and edge stroke stuff. What other questions come up a bunch? For my previous graph File I/O (under JUNG 1.7.x) I used JAXB with a simple Schema (similar to graphXML). This was partially due to having different graph types with very different purposes. (b) Software management: Is it time to release JUNG2.0alpha2? The tutorial tracks CVS and there have been nice improvements since the JUNG2.0alpha1 release of February 20th. Two months is a reasonable amount of time for a software "iteration" and this can still be called an alpha. I'm still evaluating software for discrete event simulation to combine with my code that uses JUNG... But I can add to the tutorial with my usual "minimalistic" example approach. Regards Greg B. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: Joshua O'Madadhain <joshua.omadadhain@gm...>  20070417 18:44:20

Beatriz: I'm not sure that I understand what your question is; it sounds like you're not satisfied with the results of our algorithm, but I'm not sure what you want. You've already noticed that our ranking algorithm works on the basis of degree rather than weighted degree. It sounds like you might want something that ranks vertices of the same degree according to their weighted degree. Is that correct? Maybe to clarify things you could reorder the output you showed us (just using cutandpaste) to show us what order you'd like the results to be in. Joshua On 4/17/07, Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@...> wrote: > Hi, > I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on this > algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? > My Results: > > 1. 8 conexions > 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 > 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 > 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 > 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 > 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 > 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 > 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 > 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 > 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 > 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 > 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 > > I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i don't know > how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. > > Thanks, > Bea. > >  > "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. > We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we > know there are some things we do not know. But there are > also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." > (Donald Rumsfeld) >  > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C  the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Jungsupport mailing list > Jungsupport@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jungsupport > >  joshua.omadadhain@.../~jmadden Joshua O'Madadhain: Information Scientist, Musician, PhilosopherAtTall It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.  Bill Watterson My opinions are too rational and insightful to be those of any organization. 
From: Beatriz Sevilla <bea.sevilla@gm...>  20070417 18:30:09

Hi, I'm analysing some social networks, and I have some wierd results on this algorithm, so if anyone could help me to understand?? My Results: 1. 8 conexions 2. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 52 3. 7 conexions and the sum od weights = 37 4. 6 conexions and the sum od weights = 23 5. 5 conexions and the sum od weights = 21 6. 4 conexions and the sum od weights = 11 7. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 8. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 9. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 10. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 15 11. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 17 12. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 5 13. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 8 14. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 13 15. 3 conexions and the sum od weights = 16 I understand that is ranking by the number od connexions, but i don't know how to rank when the nodes has the same number of conexions. Thanks, Bea.  "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." (Donald Rumsfeld) 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 17:44:12

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265998 By: nobody Found out what the Exception was from. It was due to me using the downloadable JAR instead of getting the source from CVS. When I looked at the examples they have methods and classes that are not available to the JAR. So once I set up the project things seem much happier. Thanks for the help. Aaron ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 16:30:20

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265849 By: eflat It's been referenced several times in this forum, and is also linked to from the JUNG2 wiki. (I haven't yet put a link to it on the main JUNG website.) Once again, it is: http://www.grottonetworking.com/JUNG/ (And, again, thanks to Greg for putting it together and updating it.) Joshua ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 16:26:16

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265841 By: nobody Hi where is this JUNG2 tutorial? Regards, Capra ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 16:22:03

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265833 By: eflat Aaron: Looks to me like you've got a bad class cast inside PicaGraphics, whatever that is. Have you looked at line 96 in that code to see what it's doing there? Joshua ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 10:43:35

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265277 By: schneidb Anyone, no clue? ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 10:13:52

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265238 By: nobody Do you have an example of the LAYOUT layer transformer and how to rotate the graph? ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 10:04:11

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4265224 By: nobody Exception in thread "AWTEventQueue0" java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.String at org.mitrecaasd.ptds.pica.viz.PicaGraphics$5.actionPerformed(PicaGraphics.jav a:96) at javax.swing.AbstractButton.fireActionPerformed(Unknown Source) at javax.swing.AbstractButton$Handler.actionPerformed(Unknown Source) at javax.swing.DefaultButtonModel.fireActionPerformed(Unknown Source) at javax.swing.DefaultButtonModel.setPressed(Unknown Source) at javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicButtonListener.mouseReleased(Unknown Source) at java.awt.Component.processMouseEvent(Unknown Source) at javax.swing.JComponent.processMouseEvent(Unknown Source) This is the exception that I am getting. Thanks, Aaron ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 06:23:28

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4264925 By: andre_rsise I'd just like to inform of these bugs I've found back in JUNG 1.7.6, and that still happen in JUNG 2: Bug #1: It can be reproduced in most of the demos. While in TRANSFORMING mode, just press the right mouse button in the graph; before releasing it, press the left mouse button. Then release the right mouse button, and drag the mouse while still holding the left mouse button. You'll get several NullPointerExceptions. This is caused by the TranslatingGraphMousePlugin.mouseDragged() method. A quick solution to this is adding an extra check in this method, replacing the following line: if(accepted) { with: if(accepted && down != null) { This workaround can possibly block some desired operations in certain complex scenarios, however since it is very unlikely that such combination of presses/releases is going to be useful in any application, I believe it's a reasonable solution. Bug #2: Change to PICKING mode and repeat the same operation (press button 3, press button 1, release button 3, drag mouse), this time in PickingGraphMousePlugin.mouseDragged(). Again, a quick solution is to add a verification just before the line: rect.setFrameFromDiagonal(down, out); which results in: if (down != null) rect.setFrameFromDiagonal(down, out); Again, I haven't thoroughly tested it to verify whether it blocks desired user operations or introduces additional bugs. I realise these combinations are unlikely to happen during "common" usage (it's hard to define what a "common" user would be), and I found them when deliberately trying to break my app, but anyway I hope this can help JUNG become a bit more robust (and avoid those nasty clients complaining about weird, hardtoreproduce NPEs). ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 05:54:40

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4264906 By: andre_rsise Just to give some update on what I found out about this bug (if indeed it is a bug):  Hardcoding the number 72 instead of Event.BUTTON3_MASK is a temporary workaround that works fine;  The only JUNG 2 demo that actually uses mouse button 3 is AnnotationsDemo (this button is used to trigger the annotation popup). However, it does not use the checkModifiers() method, but instead, in AnnotatingGraphMousePlugin, the rightclick is detected using isPopupTrigger(). That's probably the reason why this bug has gone unnoticed so far. I cannot propose a solution since I barely understand the mechanisms used in AWT and Swing, however I reckon it will require some changes in edu.uci.ics.jung.visualization.awt.ScreenDevice and also maybe some constants in edu.uci.ics.jung.visualization.event.Event. For instance, ALT_MASK and META_MASK have been defined in JUNG's Event class as 4 and 8 respectively, while java.awt.event.InputEvent defines them as 8 and 4. However, inverting these does not solve the problem, since anyway the AWT mechanism recognises button3 as META_DOWN, adding an extra bit 1 to the final mask of modifiers. I'm trying to find out how to differentiate between these two events, so that a few changes in ScreenDevice could return the right values. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 01:36:47

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4264721 By: tomnelson You can use the LAYOUT Layer transformer to rotate the graph by 90 degrees in order to make the Tree/Forest layout extend from the left. Without seeing what exception you are getting, I don't know why your collapser is not working. Tom Nelson ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20070417 01:03:54

Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4264687 By: nobody Hello, I am using JUNG for the first time so I am unsure if there is an easy answer. I decided to go with the JUNG 2.0 so that I can have the collapsable nodes that are easy to implement. However I would love for the Forest to start on the left hand side and expand to the right. Is there an easy way to do this? Also in my collapse method I am having some problems. I looked at both demos for the TreeCollapse and the VertexCollapse but I can not seem to get them to work. I even tried copying them verbatim and they still threw an exception. This is what I have: JButton collapse = new JButton("Collapse"); collapse.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { Collection picked = new HashSet(vv.getPickedVertexState().getPicked()); if(picked.size() == 1) { Object root = picked.iterator().next(); Forest inGraph = (Forest)layout.getGraph(); collapser.collapse(inGraph, (Graph)root); vv.getPickedVertexState().clear(); vv.repaint(); } }}); Any help would be great! Thanks, Aaron ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=252062 