Abstract
The paper by Woodbury and Burrow is examined using four criteria: completeness, discrimination, alternative approaches, and combining exploration in different problem domains. Although the paper covers significant aspects of the search space literature it leaves out some relevant aspects of the cognitive approach. It fares much better in terms of discriminating important concepts and alternative approaches to the modeling of the design search space. Thestructure–function–behaviormodel is suggested as an analogy for the central parameters of the search space paradigm. The Woodbury and Burrow paper reveals more than what has been accomplished up to now in the design search space area, but its task still remains incomplete.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Reference16 articles.
1. Chandrasekaran, B. & Milne, R. (1985).Reasoning about structure, behavior, and function.ACM SIGART Bulletin Archive,Vol. 93, pp.4–55.New York:ACM Press.
2. Akın, Ö. & Dave, B. (1986).Formal representation of design knowledge and process.Proc. CIB.86 Advancing Building Technology Conf., Washington,DC.
3. Kedrov, B.M. (1966).On the question of the psychology of scientific creativity.Soviet Psychology 5(2),16–37.
4. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures
5. Alexander, C. (1964).Notes on the Synthesis of Form.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The ‘Atlas’ of Design Conceptual Space: A Design Thinking Framework with Cognitive and Computational Footings;Design Computing and Cognition’22;2023
2. Toward a visual approach in the exploration of shape grammars;Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing;2015-10-07
3. A typology of design space explorers;Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing;2006-03-10