[IPOL discuss] optic flow algorithms in ipol

[Nicolas Limare]

> In addition, it could be useful to compare different implementations
> of the same algorithm, but I don't how can be organize that.
> Should we make one publication for the Horn & Schunck algorithm with
> many sub-parts devoted to each implementation and links to many demos?
> Should we compare the implementations internally and pick one (or
> two)?
> What do you think?

I think an implementation with different implementations and demos
would be confusing. Who would be the authors? How could this
be updated when, later, someone else comes with another
implementation? What would be the publication about, the algorithm or
the comparison of the implementations?
I think it is better to stick to
   1 publication = 1 algorithm and 1 implementation+demo.

In a way, this means that IPOL doesn't publish "algorithms" but
"algorithms with an implementation", and it makes sense to me, both
are equally important. 

As I recently read, "Software is the specification for how the software
is supposed to work. Anything less than the complete specification
doesn't really tell you anything about how it's ultimately going to
behave." And "The code shows me what [the program] does. It doesn't
show me what it's supposed to do. The code is the answer to a
problem."[*] That's why a detailed description of the algorithm and a
very readable implementation are both important and constitute the
published material.

[*] Douglas Crockford and Joe Armstrong, Coders ar Work, ed. Peter Siebel

-- 
Nicolas LIMARE - CMLA - ENS Cachan    http://www.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/~limare/
IPOL - image processing on line                          http://www.ipol.im/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20110927/73f96673/attachment.pgp>