- From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:15:10 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
The problem is size says very little about the production possibility frontier. The vagueness of social network as a classifier doesn't give many clues to the production couplers (eg, tradeoffs in resource consumers) or opportunity costs (tradeoffs in resources expended). You know the size of the address space (similar to length metrics in complexity) but not the actual costs to address any given node (opportunity costs). So I'm not sure what a size comparison buys you without a frame for values. len -----Original Message----- From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:56 AM To: Len Bullard Cc: Harry Halpin; public-xg-socialweb@w3.org Subject: Re: size and network value On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:52, Len Bullard wrote: > One could say a value of a social network is it rationalizes (classical > economics) irrational actors (behavioral economics). That is the nature of > a social network as a social game, even a weakly coupled game. The first aim should not so much be to find the absolute value of SN, but the difference in potential between a different sizes of SN. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:15:03 UTC