Colleagues,
Press of other duties has forced me to be an occasional "lurker" in this
discussion rather than jumping into the fray. However, the substance here is
extremely important, and I echo Kathleen's recommendation. In support of
both the conversation and any synthesis that someone might draw up, I'd like
to call the group's attention to a paper Jim Odell and I have recently
drafted on representing social structures in UML
(www.erim.org/~vparunak/agents01uml.pdf). We are focusing more on those who
must engineer agent-based systems for real applications than on abstract
social science, but our paper does suggest ways that individualist and
higher-level models might articulate with one another, and we'd be grateful
for comments.
Van Parunak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Carley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: An Offer for Publication
>
>
>
> Folks,
> I have been an intersted bystander in this conversation and have been
> tracking and keeping notes. With my editor's cap on, let me say that
> this e-conversation is quite interesting and stimulating. I wouldlike
> to offer an opportunity to the group. Would a couple of you
> be willing
> to turn this into an "edited" diolgue for CMOT? What I have
> in mind is
> to take portions of the debate and write it in part as point and
> counterpoint but add more references to articles and models than are
> typically used in an e-conversation. This could be done as a debate
> with a pro-con, as a conversation, etc. It need not look like a
> standard journal article. I just think it would be valuable
> to capture
> this with refs.
>
> Kathleen
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|