On 16 Sep 2011, at 16:23, Ruth Dalton wrote:

>> Sorry not to respond to this interesting discussion on software, but rather to respond to Danny's interesting postscript:
>>  
>> "PS: And if we want to be simple and open, could we finally stop calling closeness integration, and calling betweenness choice? People might understand us better if we use the same lingo the rest of the planet does."
>>  
>> I think that Danny has a good point to make about the language that we use and how this can create a barrier between ourselves as a community and 'outsiders'. And, like Danny, this has given me much cause for thought over the years. However, I would like to suggest that there are some useful aspects to the words "integration" and "choice".
I 

I have to agree with Ruth  for another reason Integration is a relativized form of closeness.

Just because two things are proportional doesn't make them the same any more than you can say that you should call area length to be more compatible with the wider community.

 You can't really use closeness to compare **different** cities. Its ok within a city ( to compare two different streets with global integration which is what people who implement closeness tend to use it for) 
Also closeness within a radius is a ***mess*** with with out radius you don't get local pedestrian movement and you don't get synergy measurement among other things. 

I've done some significant effort on integration radius X for non axial systems but nothing conclusive. 

Basically I would argue that graph theory hans't caught up with syntax (perhaps it has but you might not have noticed but you can't google Mathematics) . If it does then I am happy to rename  integration to it. I'm also happy to name my other radius like measures  like vicinity, decay and gauss not to mention the more advanced neighbourhood finding measures  even point intelligibility and point synergy  to what ever the guy who hasn't reinvented them yet decides to call them once they get around invent them ( which he hasn't done yet). It does strike me as a little unfair, but as a dyslexic I'm used to being excluded from the clubhouse. 

Choice ( as Iida ) point out is *not* betweenness. They are generally roughly proportional but there are a number of graphs where you would get a different result. This is due to the fact that syntax works with network based computations and the mathematical works with more matrix based computations.  

Personally I think the community  could talk about cloesness-intergration and betweenness-choice in papers as a way of both highlighting the differences and indicating similarities ( its like Eigenvector centrality  and Alpha centrality ) 

Sheep 

>> First, the utility of the word "integration" over "closeness", and this is purely a linguistic argument, is that "integration" possesses an antonym, namely "segregation" that is extremely easy to convey when talking to designers and the general public. How would you translate "a segregated street" into pure graph-theoretic terms? "a non-close street" or "a low-closeness valued street" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
>>  
>> Equally, if you are explaining space syntax to a non-academic group (for example in a public participatory or planning enquiry setting) talking about "choice" measures over "betweeness" does make it a little more accessible as most people can intuit what is meant by choice (even if they cannot understand the algorithmic basis for it). I cannot imagine your standard member of the public trying to get their head around what we might mean if we pontificated at length about "betweeness".
>>  
>> So, yes, by using these terms we maybe set ourselves aside from other academic fields, but it does mean we can talk to the rest of the world! I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this.
>>  
>> Ruth
>>  

-- 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).