 |
 |
Dear Sanjay, yes it's true that the maximal diametric length is described in your manual. AND: it was me that introduced a series of threedimentional isovist measures like height of invisibility ;-) See more at http://snizek.com/msc .... best regards Bernhard --- Bernhard Snizek landscape architect MDL MSc Sanjay Rana wrote: >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. > > > >