deletions | additions       diff --git a/bibliography/biblio.bib b/bibliography/biblio.bib  index 4f16c11..873269c 100644  --- a/bibliography/biblio.bib  +++ b/bibliography/biblio.bib 
...
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/  %% Created for Anna Jordanous at 2015-03-26 12:09:00 15:27:14  +0000 %% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8)   @article{ritchie07,  Annote = {Introduction Assumptions - What Kinds of Activity are Creative? - The Basis in Human Creativity - Sources of Evidence [ignoring process - but is this justified?] - What Kind of Program? - P-Creativity and H-Creativity - Essential properties * Novelty * Quality - ALSO - * Typicality The Framework - Basic Items - Rating the Output - The Objects Generated - Inspiring Set, Program and Results Evidence of Creativity - Preliminaries - The Criteria Related Proposals - Fine Tuning - Other Formalisations * PWC: General Extensions, More Specific Proposals, PWC-Overall * Koza et al's Guidelines Applications of the Criteria - A Poetry Generator [WASP, Gervas 2002] - A Concept Generator [Divago, Pereira 2005] - A Paraphrase Generator [Dupond, (assessed in) Pereira 2005, (reported in) Mendes et al 2004] - Pereira et al.'s Summing Up - A Melody Generator Discussion - Use of the criteria [by others] - The meaning of the criteria Possible extensions - Similarity - The Contribution of the Designer - Self-Rating of Output - Multiple Runs - Random Generation Conclusion Q. e.g. simulation using Ritchie's criteria as GA - how do you find appropriate values for threshold levels and parameters, without overfitting to your system? This is left unsaid by Ritchie except for a small section in p. 93 Q. reliance on inspiring set - does this mean that Ritchie's criteria are heavily influenced by a case-based reasoning type approach? e.g. criteria 9 checks that the examples in the inspiring set can be replicated - what if this isn't important in your system (for example... ***) or if there is no inspiring set? (*** check feedback from ICCCX paper as I think this is discussed there ***) Q. In fact is the whole approach too closely fitted to a computational approach such as used by Ritchie in JAPE or STANDUP, at the expense of applying more generally to a variety of approaches? For debate about computer creativity: Dreyfus 1979, Lovelace, Weizenbaum 1976 Computer power and human reason It is outside the scope of this paper to build a model of creativity or of the creative process, or to define what is neeeded to show evidence of creativity (p. 68). The aim is to formally define observable factors which possibly relate to creativity.},  Author = {Ritchie, Graeme},  Date-Added = {2015-03-26 15:27:13 +0000},  Date-Modified = {2015-03-26 15:27:13 +0000},  Journal = {Minds and Machines},  Keywords = {AI methodology, Computational Creativity, Empirical criteria, Generating artefacts, Assessing output},  Pages = {67-99},  Read = {No},  Title = {Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program},  Volume = {17},  Year = {2007}}  @inproceedings{jordanous10,  Address = {Lisbon, Portugal},  Annote = {GA system using Ritchie's criteria as a fitness function for creativity},