hi Sanjay, I am one of those isovist analyst users that can indeed support
your claim. Hope you´re alright. best wishes. romulo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjay Rana" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Automatic extraction of hierarchical urban networks
> Dear all,
>
> Could all the users of the ArcView extension "Isovist Analyst" version
1.0,
> developed by me, support my claim that:
>
> 1. The concept and implementation of maximum diametric length measure
was
> first proposed by me (in May 2002) in the user's manual (duly
copyrighted)
> of the "Isovist Analyst".
>
> 2. The concept and demonstration of the ridges on the maximum diametric
> length measure for finding lines of dominant visibility e.g. axial
lines,
> was first proposed by me (in May 2002) in the user's manual (duly
> copyrighted) of the "Isovist Analyst".
>
> Just drop a line in support as response to this message.
>
> I am sorry to having to ask you to do this but I would be very grateful
for
> your support because despite my strong and clear repeated verbal and
> written protests to the authors, CASA working papers No. 69 and 73 are
> giving the entire credit of these two ideas to Carvalho et al..
>
> Carvalho et al. were privy to my research and sadly to my loss, I have
been
> slow in publishing my results and have landed in this fight to save my
> intellectural property right to my ideas.
>
> I would also like to inform you a fundamental misleading piece of
> information in both the papers. Both the papers refer to Ratti(2001) for
> the maximum diametric length measure which is infact not used in the
actual
> paper. The papers are actually based on my methodology and I know this
> because as the papers say in the acknowledgement, I did the initial runs
of
> the extension using my software. Although Ratti(2001) also proposed a a
> similar diametric length measure, Ratti's measure would not produce the
> same "orientation" and "number of ridge lines" as his computation method
is
> NOT strictly based on Lines of Sights. I had also made this point clear
to
> both the authors. But above all, here again, there is an effort to
> undermine my ideas.
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.
>
> Sanjay.
>
|