Jim, Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.
I supplied the straw. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) > [Original Message] > From: Jim Gattiker <j.gatti...@googlemail.com> > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's > > > AHA! you DO have a taxonomy. > > To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it): > > Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy > possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an > implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that > software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a > core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling > idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent > optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in > implementation. > > --jim ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
