>> Does anyone know what's the theoretical foundation of computational graphs?
Automata can be represented as graphs- that's the main idea. When you look at the typical automaton diagram with states and transitions- that's a graph (with states as vertices and transitions as edges).
I think the confusion arises from the fact that, while automata can be represented as graphs, graphs can represent a much broader array of processes and objects (e.g. belief networks or semantic networks). I guess you can represent pretty much anything as a graph.
So "computational graph" as I understand it, just stresses the point that what is represented is a unit of computation (a.k.a. an automaton a.k.a. a grammar a.k.a. a language etc. etc.) rather than some other kind of graph.
> So "computational graph" as I understand it, just stresses the point that what is represented is a unit of computation (a.k.a. an automaton a.k.a. a grammar a.k.a. a language etc. etc.) rather than some other kind of graph.
Exactly. I think that the fact that the nodes represent a unit of computation is enough for it to be different from normal graphs I think.
Automata can be represented as graphs- that's the main idea. When you look at the typical automaton diagram with states and transitions- that's a graph (with states as vertices and transitions as edges).
I think the confusion arises from the fact that, while automata can be represented as graphs, graphs can represent a much broader array of processes and objects (e.g. belief networks or semantic networks). I guess you can represent pretty much anything as a graph.
So "computational graph" as I understand it, just stresses the point that what is represented is a unit of computation (a.k.a. an automaton a.k.a. a grammar a.k.a. a language etc. etc.) rather than some other kind of graph.