Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-9dm9z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T19:49:23.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit design space?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2006

RAMESH KRISHNAMURTI
RAMESH KRISHNAMURTI
Affiliation:
School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the need for explicit representations of the design space, in response to Woodbury and Burrow. Specifically, their proposal for a particular search strategy, by means of which one can reuse past experiences explicitly represented by previously traversed paths, is examined. This is done by exploring issues with respect to design search and representation in general, while relating these to specific issues raised by Woodbury and Burrow. The paper concludes by suggesting that their arguments essentially point to devising an appropriate “programming language” for design.

Keywords

Data TypesDesign SpaceGrammarsRepresentationSearch

Information

Type
RESPONSE TO KEYNOTE
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 95 - 103
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aït-Kaći, H. (1984). A lattice theoretic approach to computation based on a calculus of partially ordered type structures (property inheritance, semantic nets, graph unification). PhD Thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Akın, Ö. (1986). A formalism for problem structuring and resolution. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 13(2), 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akın, Ö. (1999). Variants of design cognition. In Knowing and Learning to Design Conference (Eastman, C., McCracken, M. & Newstetter, W., Eds.). New York: Elsevier. Accessed at www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/oa04/Papers/Variants.pdf on June 14, 2005.
Akın, Ö. (2001). “Simon Says”: Design is representation. Arredamento, July. Accessed at www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/oa04/Papers/AradSimon.pdf. on June 14, 2005.
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. (2003). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baumgart, B.C. (1975). A polyhedron representation for computer vision. In National Computer Conference 1975, pp. 589–596. Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press.CrossRef
Bruton, D. & Radford, A.D. (in press). Bending Rules: Grammar, Contingency, Art and Design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Burrow, A. (2006). Type feature structure and design exploration. PhD Thesis. University of Adelaide.
Cardelli, L. (1984). A semantics of multiple inheritances. Proc. Int. Symp. Semantics of Data Types (Kahn, G., MacQueen, D. & Plotkin, G., Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 173. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.
Carlson, C. (1993). Grammatical programming: an algebraic approach to the description of design spaces. PhD Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.
Carpenter, B. (1992). The logic of typed feature structures with applications to unification grammars, logic programs and constraint resolution. In Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Earl, C.F. (1999). Generated designs: structure and composition. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 13(4), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, R. & Dawes, R.M. (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krishnamurti, R. (1986). The MOLE picture book: on a logic for design. In Design Computing, vol. 1, pp. 171–188. New York: Wiley.
Krishnamurti, R. (1992). The maximal representation of a shape. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, R. & Stouffs, R. (1997). Spatial change: continuity, reversibility and emergent shapes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(3), 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, R. & Stouffs, R. (2004). The boundary of a shape and its classification. The Journal of Design Research, 4(1). Accessed at http://jdr.tudelft.nl/articles/issue2004.01/stouffs.pdf on June 14, 2005.
Kuratowski, K. (1972). Introduction to Set Theory and Topology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mäntylä, M. (1988). An Introduction to Solid Modeling. Rockville, MD: Computer Science Press.
Mitchell, W.J. (1993). A computational view of design creativity. In Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design (Gero, J.S. & Maher, M.L., Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paoluzzi, A., Ramella, M., & Santarelli, A. (1989). Boolean algebra over linear polyhedra. Computer Aided Design 21, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, A. (1998). Modeling Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scott, D. (1976). Data types as lattices. SIAM Journal of Computing 5(3), 522–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G. (1992). Weights. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiny, G. (1993). Emergence and continuity in shape grammars. In CAAD Futures '93 (Flemming, U. & Van Wyk, S., Eds.), pp. 37–54. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Stiny, G. (1994). Shape rules: Closure, continuity, and emergence. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21(1), s49–s78.Google Scholar
Stouffs, R. & Krishnamurti, R. (1996a). On a query language for weighted geometries. Third Canadian Conf. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (Moselhi, O., Bedard, C. & Alkass, S., Eds.), pp. 783–793, Montreal, Canada, August 26–28.
Stouffs, R. & Krishnamurti, R. (1996b). The extensibility and applicability of geometric representations. 3rd Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conf., Architecture Proc., pp. 436–452, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, August 18–21.
Stouffs, R. & Krishnamurti, R. (2002). Representational flexibility for design. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 105–128. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Stouffs, R., Krishnamurti, R., & Eastman, C.M. (1996). A formal structure for nonequivalent solid representations. Proc. IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Knowledge Intensive CAD II (Finger, S., Mäntylä, M. & Tomiyama, T., Eds.), International Federation for Information Processing, Working Group 5.2, pp. 269–289, Pittsburgh, PA, September 16–18.
Stoy, J. (1977). Denotational Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Woodbury, R., Burrow, A., Datta, S., & Chang, T-W. (1999). Typed feature structures and design space exploration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 13(4), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar