[FRIAM] Callling all cladisticists

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> I seriously doubt that there is a one-size-fits-all taxonomy 
> classifier for ABMs that will produce anything other than "No shit!" 
> rudimentary descriptive information about any given ABM.
It might be informative to see map of invented conceptual attributes and 
applications can be partitioned across a large set of models.  I can't 
deny this just amounts to classifying individual models.  It's just that 
I don't think it is interesting to say "Model 1 is a A type", and "Model 
2 is B type" in isolation.   The interesting part would be the locations 
of A and B and others in a multidimensional space.  (That's why I first 
suggested the Euler diagrams in response to Glen's proposal.)

Marcus