Hello Stephen, Rui,
On 02/06/07, Stephen Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I still think it all depends on the purpose of what you are analysing, and
> the conclusions you intend to draw from the analysis.
> The problem of comparability of networks across cultures would seem no more
> or less difficult than the problem of comparing anything, for example,
This problem was solved by space syntax long ago. By adopting abstract
entities such as axial or continuity lines, it is possible to reduce
the system to a 'minimal description' that captures elementary
organisational properties of such systems.
By carefully explaining our assumptions, i.e. how the descriptions are
created and their limitations, the results are still impressive and
several conclusions can be made. I would recommend you to have a look
at:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00002694/
I compared maps of 101 cities using continuity lines and could draw
very interesting conclusions and create a taxonomy for cities, despite
the limitations of the technique.
However, if you start to add details, such as street widths, names and
etc, you automatically reduce the comparability of the any type of
object. You stop dealing with a 'class' of objects and start dealing
with 'subclasses' or even individual objects.
Transport planning is a classical example, where models have to be
'calibrated' for each individual case (or time). More layers of
information do tell different things, but do turn objects
incomparable.
Best Regards,
Lucas Figueiredo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/
Mindwalk
http://www.mindwalk.com.br
|