Douglas Roberts wrote:
I seriously doubt that there is a one-size-fits-all taxonomy
classifier for ABMs that will produce anything other than "No shit!"
rudimentary descriptive information about any given ABM.
It might be informative to see map of invented conceptual attributes and
applications can be partitioned across a large set of models. I can't
deny this just amounts to classifying individual models. It's just that
I don't think it is interesting to say "Model 1 is a A type", and "Model
2 is B type" in isolation. The interesting part would be the locations
of A and B and others in a multidimensional space. (That's why I first
suggested the Euler diagrams in response to Glen's proposal.)
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
