> Final point. One should not forget that the network measures used  
> in space syntax a...

Oh I think space syntax is well read by Physicists

check out
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/6675mm1263x3672x/? 
p=6ae21fac2b4f4f8284e85e8a87d7b3b0&pi=2

http://tinyurl.com/68wa8d

Intelligibility and first passage times in complex urban networks

'Abstract
Topology of urban environments can be represented by means of graphs.  
We explore the graph representations of several compact urban  
patterns by random walks. The expected time of recurrence and the  
expected first passage time to a node scales apparently linearly in  
all urban patterns we have studied. In space syntax theory, a  
positive relation between the local property of a node (qualified by  
connectivity or by the recurrence time) and the global property of  
the node (estimated in our approach by the first passage time to it)  
is known as intelligibility. Our approach, based on random walks,  
allows us to extend the notion of intelligibility onto the entire  
domain of complex networks and graph theory.'

All the more amusing when you think it how unlikely it would be for  
an article on space syntax its self to make it into the proceedings  
of the royal society.


On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:28, Alan Penn wrote:

> I think that the 'hermetic' suggestion is not entirely accurate.  
> Space syntax methods and measures seem to me to have been picked up  
> and used by a remarkably heterogeneous series of fields of  
> research, from organisation theory through architecture, planning  
> and geography, cartography, GIS, phenomenology, history and  
> archaeology, anthropology and ethnography, computer science,  
> engineering, construction, mathematics and physics, art - one could  
> go on. In fact, I find astounding the breadth of the fields that  
> these ideas have penetrated.
>
> The lack of 'comparisons' between terminology in one and another  
> field is clear, but cannot be blamed on any one of these fields  
> alone. What I think we see is a case of the logic of the real world  
> leading towards similar ideas and measures being invented from more  
> than one starting point. Because the starting points are different  
> one does not naturally think of conducting a literature review of  
> the other fields until they become quite mature. Why would a  
> biologist working on complex mitogenic signaling think of reviewing  
> papers in architecture and urbanism? and vice versa? All of these  
> fields invent terminology for things which one can eventually see  
> as being very similar. Now perhaps it is time for someone to do a  
> full review of all of these measures and their terminology, perhaps  
> accompanied by a brief history of each subject field to show how  
> they have evolved to the point of convergence.
>
> There is a rather nice book that does something similar for the  
> various derivations of the Lorentz transform - a really good read  
> for those with that kind of mind.
>
> Final point. One should not forget that the network measures used  
> in space syntax are only the second half of the story. What comes  
> first and is very domain specific is the representation of spatial  
> morphology in terms of some set of discrete 'spaces' that are to be  
> related in the network (axial lines, rooms, etc.) the fact that  
> these networks bear a direct relationship to a spatial morphology  
> is really what separates them from abstract measures of networks  
> alone. I see that various physics field papers are now beginning to  
> discover this kind of mapping (often without reviewing the field  
> well enough to discover space syntax) but I think that this is  
> natural - who would have thought that someone else might have done  
> this before?
>
> Alan Penn
> Professor of Architectural and Urban Computing,
> The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies,
> UCL,
> Gower Street,
> London WC1H 6BT
> United Kingdom
> tel: +44 (0)20 7679 5919
> fax: +44 (0)20 7916 1887
> m: +44 (0)7711 696875
> [log in to unmask]
> www.spacesyntax.com
> www.vr.ucl.ac.uk
>
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2008, at 18:29, Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/22 Professor Bill Hillier <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> Dear Lucas - You only partially quote what is said in The Social  
>>> Logic of
>>> Space on p 273. What it actually says is 'All mathematical  
>>> formula are
>>> original, as far as we know, with the exception of ...'
>>
>> ".. of the formula for ringness which is well know"
>>
>> I think you missed the point of my e-mail. I agree that the
>> normalisation mechanisms are not only original, but very innovative,
>> as well as the measure of control.
>>
>>> I think what you should have said was that measures of depth/ 
>>> accessibility -
>>> and betweenness - were already in use well before SLS, but our  
>>> adaptations
>>> and interpretations of them for patterns of real space were not.  
>>> - Bill
>>
>> As you correct me here, for instance, the mean depth is closeness
>> centrality, connectivity is degree. In other words, there is enough
>> material to make comparisons.
>>
>> My point is that, at least in my opinion, there is no effort to make
>> such comparisons. Since all following research is based on these  
>> early
>> books/papers, there we go... more and more hermetic.
>>
>> At the same time that this simplifies things for not creating a side
>> argument to the main focus of analysis, it complicate things for
>> outsiders. It creates a huge barrier for them.
>>
>> This is my opinion and it has been for some years.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Lucas
>>
>>> More substantively:
>>> - the two normalisations of depth measures that we used in SLS  
>>> (RA and RRA)
>>> are not in earlier literature as far as I know - if they are, no  
>>> one  has
>>> even pointed them out - it is now incumbent on you to do so.  
>>> Please do not
>>> instance Phil's book 'Architectural Morphology' as there it is  
>>> quite clear
>>> that Phil is explaining our normalisation - and again not  
>>> referring to any
>>> others. Can you find these in Buckley and Harary's compendious  
>>> 'Distance in
>>> Graphs' for example ? There are of course other ways of normalising
>>> depth-type measures, but the way we did it reflected the  
>>> intuitive picture
>>> you could get from the justified graph - another useful  
>>> innovation in SLS -
>>> and this made it intuitively clear and accessible
>>> - the 'control' measure is original, as far as I know - again if  
>>> you know
>>> it is not, please point it out.
>>> - other measures of line patterns in Chapter 3 are not in earlier
>>> literature, with the exception acknowledged on p 273
>>>
>>> Our version of the 'betweenness' measure, which we called choice  
>>> was not
>>> developed by us until after SLS, but it is calculated on quite a  
>>> different
>>> way to Freeman's 1977 measure, and is, I still believe, a better  
>>> and more
>>> accurate (in some cases, especially small systems) - though  
>>> computationally
>>> more laborious - way to measure the same thing.
>>>
>>> I think what you should have said was that measures of depth/ 
>>> accessibility -
>>> and betweenness - were already in use well before SLS, but our  
>>> adaptations
>>> and interpretations of them for patterns of real space were not.  
>>> - Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 17:17 22/10/2008, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Ozlem,
>>>
>>> 2008/10/22 Ozlem Sahbaz <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>> Have any of you come across a reference that discusses the  
>>>> commonalities
>>>> and differences between Space Syntax methodology and traditional  
>>>> network
>>>> analysis ?
>>>
>>> It depends which kind of traditional network analysis you refer to.
>>> Networks are everywhere, in Transport Planning, Geography,
>>> Mathematics, Computer Science, Social Sciences, and recently, a huge
>>> flurry in Physics (mostly Statistical Mechanics) and Biology - often
>>> called 'Network Science'.
>>>
>>> My thesis compares in details the 'configurational analysis' with  
>>> two
>>> of those traditions, Quantitative Geography and Network Science,  
>>> also
>>> mentioning transportation models. But, unfortunately, it will be
>>> publicly available only next year.
>>>
>>> On this new network science, you may also have a look in may last
>>> paper ( http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2694/). Hoon's papers, sometimes
>>> Sheep's too, also make use of this literature. But no direct
>>> comparison, I am afraid.
>>>
>>> The problem is that our 'configurational studies' evolved along the
>>> years into an hermetic field that ignores other literature. This was
>>> also discussed here. Alan says that the intention was to facilitate
>>> things for architects, I would argue that the effect was opposite,
>>> complicating things for outsiders.
>>>
>>> Doing the review for my thesis, I discovered that this is a problem
>>> since its inception. If you get your copy of 'The Social Logic of
>>> Space' (1984) and look at p. 273, it is mentioned there that 'all
>>> mathematical formulae is original'. It is not, as we know, and  
>>> most of
>>> them was used in the same form in other disciplines, mostly in  
>>> social
>>> networks (early 70's).
>>>
>>> In the same page there is a brief mention to Kruger's work (1979) as
>>> if it were not relevant (because he does no solve the problem of
>>> representing space), when it is. It does not mention other
>>> graph-theoretic uses in architecture, such as Matela and O'Hare  
>>> (1979)
>>> or P. Steadman (1973).
>>>
>>> If graph-theoretical approaches are not considered relevant in
>>> Architecture, imagine those of other disciplines....
>>>
>>> Worse still, Kruger himself (the two papers I read in EPB) does not
>>> make a huge review of other disciplines, citing briefly Kansky and
>>> Harary. It seems that no-one was ever interested in making such kind
>>> of comparison.
>>>
>>> The payback is that people ignores what is being done here, and they
>>> do it on purpose.
>>>
>>> To complicate matters, this body of research had a 180 turn and  
>>> is now
>>> closely related to environmental psychology. The idea of a 'network
>>> analysis' that measures arrangements of objects is now secondary
>>> because, in practice, the angular-segment or the visual analysis is
>>> 'distance model', as any other such as shortest-paths or travel  
>>> time.
>>>
>>> This is even explicitly acknowledged by several authors as you may
>>> find in Batty's papers (distance in space syntax) and in the Place
>>> Syntax accessibility model.
>>>
>>> As a newcomer I find all of this totally inconsistent and  
>>> laborious to
>>> deal with. The only positive thing I see in this 'hermetic approach'
>>> is that it opens space for criticism, so one has a subject to write
>>> papers about.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>