ni

s a nim rop rite niza spec d co ferences between skeletons obtained by different methods. with rieval, it two ed by Curve s hape a and practical contexts. Recognizing these challenges, Cornea et al. [3] have presented a taxonomy of curve skeletonization methods and the way these satisfy a set of desirable skeletal properties, and illustrated these for four such methods. Since this publication, several new s by presenting a tion methods. In thods. In a after their was published. We use in our comparison the same desirabl ria as in [3]. In addition, we also propose a detailed comp that aims to provide a fine-grained detail view on the subtle ences between skeletons computed by different methods, includ-ing comparisons of curve with surface skeletons. Our results offer additional insight in limitations and challenges of current methods which, to our knowledge, have not been highlighted so far. These results represent further support for the quest of designing better skeletonization methods. q This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Cris L. Luengo Hendriks