Recognition of the radial structure of concepts, and the role that prototype conceptual structures play in human reasoning, has been a vital innovation within cognitive science during the last half of the twentieth century (Lakoff 1987; Rosch and Lloyd 1978). However, the larger implications of this insight have yet to be fully realized. The concept of a cognitive prototype was generated largely from empirical research, so one way of describing the undeveloped potential, is that the utilization of prototype concepts within active, dynamic reasoning processes has yet to be adequately explored. Such an oversight is understandable, since research strategies that would identify reasoning processes in depth are more difficult to design than studies that document prototypes as a prevalent form of psychological (primarily recall) data.


Relational Model Radial Structure Social Simulation Prototype Concept Agent Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, Jon. 1989. The Situation in Logic. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryson, Joanna J. and Lynn A. Stein. 2001. “Modularity and design in reactive intelligence.” Pp. 1115–1120 in Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Codd, E.F. 1970. “A relational model of data for large shared data banks.” Communications of the ACM 13:377–387.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson, Joanna J. and Lynn A. Stein. 1979. “Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning.” ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4:397–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devlin, Keith J. 1991. Logic and Information. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Elio, Renée. 2002. Common Sense, Reasoning, & Rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Graham, A. C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hammer, Michael and Dennis McLeod. 1978. “The semantic data model: A modelling mechanism for data base applications.” Pp. 26–36 in Proceedings of the 1978 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. MacCrimmon, M. T. and Peter Tillers. 2002. The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense. Heidelberg; New York: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Mamei, Marco and Franco Zambonelli. 2004. “Self-maintained distributed tuples for field-based coordination in dynamic networks.” in ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  14. Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara B. Lloyd. 1978. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; distributed by Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sallach, David L. 2003. “Interpretive agents: Identifying principles, designing mechanisms.” Pp. 345–353 in Agent 2003: Challenges in Social Simulation, edited by C. Macal, M. North, and D. Sallach, Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  16. Sewell, William H. Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Sallach
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Complex Adaptive Agent Systems SimulationArgonne National LaboratoryUSA
  2. 2.Computation InstituteUniversity of ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations