Re: Fw: [Swarm-Modelling] GEPR on life-cycle requirements

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Well, just because some feature doesn't currently exist doesn't mean
> it's not a basic or essential requirement.
I'm glad to discuss this topic, but honestly, if it were essential to 
doing ABM at all, then people couldn't do ABM at all yet they do!   
There are many ABM toolkits that have been around a long time, and that 
we'd have to struggle to articulate the requirement strongly suggests 
that "basic requirement" is not the right way to think about this.  

What we are talking about is a better methodology or theory for ABM 
agent or collective transformations.  And better methodology is more 
than enough reason to proceed.
> We've seen a great deal of
> progress in this direction already.  The ABM tools out there already
> satisfy the object evolution requirement to _some_ extent.  But, we
> don't know to _what_ extent.  That's why it would be nice to see some
> people chime in about how well various tools meet the requirement (if,
> indeed, others think its a requirement).
>   
Change it to "The ABM tools out there already can simulate object 
evolution to _some_ extent", and I'm happy to move on.

I wrote:
> > Left to determine is whether the absence of a language for describing 
> > agents which are superpositions of many agents is not well handled 
> > using a very general superclass, or perhaps generics, as would be 
> > done in most object oriented toolkits.   And if so, what would be better.
but Glen only quoted:
> > After that is determined, then in this waterfall model of software
> > development, we can move on to questions of design.
> >     
>
> You seem to believe that the whole community is involved or in agreement
> with your leap to a conclusion.  I disagree.  I'd like to hear what
> others have to say before we short circuit the discussion.
>
>   
I'm not leaping to any conclusions.  I'm more than happy to refine or 
generalize the definition of object evolution.  Feel free to address the 
proposition I made rather than making public guesses about my 
assumptions.  I did leave it open as "And if so, what would be better".  
It seems to me the predicate I proposed, if too fragile, can be refined 
or generalized as well.   I do prefer to be concrete if at all possible.