On 6/19/26 18:09, Michael Wong via SG19 wrote:
> SG19's charter explicitly includes "optimization for graph programming" alongside linear algebra, array operations, and machine learning support. Graph algorithms are foundational infrastructure for ML workloads — neural network architectures are directed graphs, dependency resolution in training pipelines is topological sorting, knowledge graphs are increasingly central to AI systems. The question of whether graphs are "general-purpose enough" for the standard must be evaluated against this backdrop: the committee has already decided, by chartering SG19, that this domain merits standardization attention.

Study Groups are created by act of the convenor, thus the existence
of a Study Group does not imply that "the committee has decided"
anything at all.

> 2.
>
> *Separate the concepts from the containers and algorithms.* The strongest near-term standardization case may be for the graph /concepts/ alone — a minimal vocabulary that allows the ecosystem to converge, without committing to specific algorithms or containers. This is analogous to how the Ranges proposal began with foundational concepts before the full |<ranges>| library. If the concepts prove useful and stable in practice, the algorithms can follow later with much lower risk.f

A named concept is effectively immutable after it has been standardized,
so I don't think the approach to have concepts without use of those
concepts is getting us a good end result.

As far as I remember, the ranges concepts did come with a selection
of ranges algorithms, too, which served as proof that the concepts
were viable. Yes, more ranges algorithms were added later.

Jens