All very interesting, but as the end of the year approaches it's perhaps
time to remember that there's only been a couple of related papers in EPB
this year and I'm the first author of one of these with Prof Mike Batty.
Take home message: I read papers, not emails.
All the best for Xmas,
Rui
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Alasdair Turner
> Sent: 20 December 2005 11:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SPACESYNTAX] RA or RRA
>
> These are slightly different things though, which is why I said "returns
> to an argument about open source", not necessarily a good reason in
itself.
>
> Lucas's point seems to concern repeatability of an experiment, where we
> specify the apparatus used. The open source comes down to verifiability
> of the manufacturers' claim about their apparatus.
>
> That is, there is a difference between having used the X-brand IR
> spectrometer, so another scientist can repeat the experiment, and a
> verification that the X-brand spectrometer works as claimed, which
> requires a different sort of person (one that understands the workings
> of the machine, but not necessarily the results it produces).
>
> Alasdair
>
> Nick Dalton wrote:
> > Lucas I completely agree.
> >
> > sheep
> >
> > ps this would also be a good reason to make more academic software open
> > source.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> That is why I reinforce that academic software must be properly
> >> published AND cited - because it is part of the methodology you use in
> >> experiments. I think we must put it in our software licence "cite it,
> >> otherwise do not use it".
> >>
> >> Regards!
> >> Lucas
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Alasdair Turner
> Course Director
> MSc Adaptive Architecture and Computation
> Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
> UCL Gower Street LONDON WC1E 6BT
>
> http://www.aac.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/
|