Comment ... I don't know what all this adds up to, but it feels important so let's put this node here and see what we capture (in terms of links to it.)
1) One kind of network is a bunch of connected equal nodes.
2) Another is a diagram of elements and higher level groupings of elements.
3) Yet another connects concrete elements with more abstract generalizations.
In a UML diagram both IsA and HasA relations are represented. IsA is a kind of abstraction. HasA is a kind of grouping. Maybe uses / talks to / or * StrategyPattern* represents nodes at the same level (type 1)
In PurchasingStrategy I talk about the general problem of pulling out a particular strategy to a separate department. A kind of abstracting. Here, considering the problem of AspectOrientation, I suggested that ReWriting was the higher-level activity than ReFactoring.
Is it just an accident of using the same kind of diagrams to represent different things. NetworkDiagrams are very flexible. Or maybe I should just go learn CategoryTheory so I know what the hell I'm talking about.
See also :