I said one or more nodes because I assume it doesn't make sense for a group to have zero nodes - is that true? Maybe there is a case for a group to have zero nodes.

This is different than the hyperedge, which is a set of two or more nodes. The hyperedge cannot contain other edges and cannot be treated as a node itself. (I'm assuming that it doesn't make sense to create a hyperedge with 0 or 1 nodes).

The reason why I don't simply call a group a subnetwork or a network is because the word group suggests that the nodes and edges contained in it are held together by a special relationship that other subnetworks in the containing network don't have. So, the word group could also be seen as an adjective for subnetwork: a grouped subnetwork is a subnetwork that has been deemed to be a special subnetwork (because its nodes and/or edges are related to each other in some special way) in the containing network. Does that make sense? I hope so...

would the interface make more sense if the methods looked like this?:

API/CommentSemantics (last edited 2009-02-12 01:03:38 by localhost)

Funding for Cytoscape is provided by a federal grant from the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the Na tional Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number GM070743-01. Corporate funding is provided through a contract from Unilever PLC.

MoinMoin Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux