Jochen Fromm wrote: > > So what do you think ? Self organization is a part of many systems/networks whether sensors or otherwise.
> Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ? No. > Is it the best area to realize self-organization, > or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - that is the sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications. One application I have heard of would be robots randomly placed in an area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent society fails if they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for losses due to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed for an actual test. There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams. The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication within dynamic self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of broadcast routing and continuous re-routing. One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat System (you can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS sensors, but that is not their primary function. -- Ray Parks [EMAIL PROTECTED] IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 ============================================================ 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
