 |
 |
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:35:54 +0100, Alan Penn <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Rui wrote:, >> As you are well aware, there is no rigorous definition of axial lines, so >> one can only claim to develop algorithms inspired by those. But anyone who >> claims to be able to generate axial lines may as well be selling you snake >> oil -to this day, they remain algorithmically undefined. > >Rui, > >The axial map must by now be one of the better defined and more thoroughly >discussed representational primitives in spatial analysis. In looking >through the literature I came across one paper: Carvalho, Rui et al (2003) >"A rigorous definition of axial lines: ridges on isovist fields"... surely >this is not snake-oil? > Hello Alan, No, the paper is not snake oil -it's an unpublished working paper. Why do we write 'axial lines' in the published papers? because there's no other way to refer to what we have found in the 2 papers we published. Are these axial lines? Well that depends. Are these papers being taught in graduate school for having solved a 20 year old problem? why did you need to get back with another paper which was little more than a remake of results from the 80s just after we published our two papers? Why did you write on this list before that axial maps were defined and never mentioned our papers? By the time the papers were written you had changed what axial lines were -and that is what the Alasdair et al. paper is about. A new definition of axial lines. So, obviously, Alan, our paper does not solve the problem. Because the moment we solved the problem, you changed it!!! Rui >Here I attach Alasdair Turner et al's paper entitled "An algorithmic >definition of the axial map". I'd be interested to see any equally or more >rigorous definitions of other representational primitives from outside the >space syntax field. > >Alan > > >