JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC Archives

SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC  1999

SIMSOC 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: A common ontology for social simulation

From:

Jan Burse <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jan Burse <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 04 Feb 1999 23:16:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Dear Titto

> A basic description of the Shelling model might for example be
> expanded by a second researcher providing the relevant
> implementation details for, say, Java.

I have two thoughts, and one after thought:

1) The ends of a model doesn't have to be its execution only. This point is
especially difficult to aprehend if we nevertheless claim that we need computers.
It has to do with the conceptualisation of computers, or more correctly of
what a computer has been designed for. I see the following
conceptualisations:

(A) The computer is an algorithmic device: So the main task that we delegate,
      or better amputate, to the computer is processing. (numerical models,
      agent-based simulations, etc..)

(B) The computer is an augmentative media: Here the tasks that we delegate
      to the computer are storage, presentation and transport. (wordprocessing,
      internet, databases, etc..)

We can prescribe (A) as the ultimate application of a computer, and we can
view (B) only as a means to reach the end (A). On the other a simple obser-
vation of someones environment shows that (B) is often the main application
of a computer.

2) The scenario of the use for an intermediate language doesn't have to be
refinement only. I suggest an important application would be crossfertili-
sation. For this purpose we have first to look at what we can capture with
an intermedia language, and what we can do with
what we have captured:

(I) The intermediate model captures the main characteristics of a class of
    simulations tasks. For example in the shelly model, it captures the
    characteristics of a model that observes segregation. The intermediate
    model would not be executable, but could at different places be extended
    to a simulation task.

(II) The intermediate model captures an element that reoccures in different
   classes of simulation tasks. For example in edmunds model of the El Farror
   Bar problem, trees are used in the genetic algorithms. The concept of a
   trees could also be used in other models. The intermediate model would
   not be executable, but could at different places be used in a simulation
   task.

So I have added a second form of reuse, which is not top-down refinement,
but rather bottom-up assemblage. But I was still following the track that
the intermediate language is a means to the end of execution. Before I will
leave this track, I would like to make a note on how a reuse program could fail,
and what could be the cure.

On first sight an intermediate model itself could be conceptualized as a catalog,
or schema, or class diagramm or equivalently RDF model which describes the
abstract or concrete components that are just there. This is a dead-end. To give
you an example, imagine that you have the list of all toolbox calls of a macintosh
and that your job is to draw a circle into a window. You will not find the right calls
in a sensible time.  So what is missing is a description of the mechanism between
the components, so that you know how you have to sequence your calls. You
need to know the use of the components.

Modern modelling languages like UML have behavioural views. These views don't
only show the static structure of the problem domain. They can also show the dynamic
behaviour of the problem domain. There has also been a little hipe about a new
view, which was already introduced '87, but which has only recently become widely
accepted. This is the use case view which denotes the most important ingre-
dients of a mechanism, namely the client and the collaborators. So use cases are
currently used to give a view on patterns, business process, etc.. and they can serve
as a glue between different views and different phases in a project.

So lets try to leave the execution track. As somebody with a computer science back-
ground I am very comfortable with the notion of an execution. Unfortunately this
notion is of no use for the scientists I am working with. They can get away without
it. The traditional methods don't depend on it except for a little statistics. So
conceptualisation (A) of a computer is essentially void for them. On the other
had they are hard knowledge workers, so they read a lot of publications and
they communicate with a lot of peoples. So they very much use the computer
in the sense of (B).

We have already left the execution track. Lets see whether there is a relation to
the intermediate level. On one hand, because execution is an alien concept, the
use of models to study phenomena is refused and intermediate models of level
(I) are of no use. On the other hand, intermediate models of level (II) generate
a lot of interest, because they give clues for traditional theorizing. So there is
a flow from software models back to wetware models. The flow demands a lot
of learning on the side of the scientist.

A lot of learning is demanded because harmless concepts like for example the
tree in the before mentioned edmunds model are again alien. To understand
the tree, again the scientist has not only to understand the recursive structure
of the tree, but also its behavioural use. In the case of the edmunds model
the use is evaluation, so two patterns come together the composite patterns
and the visitor pattern. The scientist can now go on, and read something
about trees and even develop a formal theory about trees. And/or he can
develop a little program for a tree and check some scenarios.

3) After thought: So the basic question arises again, should execution be used
to study a phenomena? In my opinion there is no fixed purpose of a computer.
So its up to us how we want to study a phenomena and to what degree we want
computer support. Execution or processing can mean a lot and is an open ended
term. An intermediate language which is able to express behavioural views and
not only structural views could be a means to shape our requirements from case
to case.

Best Regards
--
Jan Burse
Umweltphysik, EAWAG
8600 Dübendorf
tel: +41-1-823 55 34
E-mail: [log in to unmask]




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager