Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:51:35.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formal analysis of design process dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2010

Tibor Bosse ,
Catholijn M. Jonker  and
Jan Treur
Tibor Bosse*
Affiliation:
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Catholijn M. Jonker
Affiliation:
Department of Mediametics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Jan Treur
Affiliation:
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a formal analysis of design process dynamics. Such a formal analysis is a prerequisite to come to a formal theory of design and for the development of automated support for the dynamics of design processes. The analysis was geared toward the identification of dynamic design properties at different levels of aggregation. This approach is specifically suitable for component-based design processes. A complicating factor for supporting the design process is that not only the generic properties of design must be specified, but also the language chosen should be rich enough to allow specification of complex properties of the system under design. This requires a language rich enough to operate at these different levels. The Temporal Trace Language used in this paper is suitable for that. The paper shows that the analysis at the level of a design process as a whole and at subprocesses thereof is precise enough to allow for automatic simulation. Simulation allows the modeler to manipulate the specifications of the system under design to better understand the interlevel relationships in his design. The approach is illustrated by an example.

Keywords

Declarative ModelingDesign ProcessesDynamicsLogical AnalysisSimulation
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes , August 2010 , pp. 397 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, R.A., & Chung, M.J. (1995, February). A formal approach to managing design processes. IEEE Computer 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barringer, H., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., Owens, R., & Reynolds, M. (1996). The Imperative Future: Principles of Executable Temporal Logic. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., & Treur, J. (2003). Simulation and analysis of controlled multi-representational reasoning processes. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Cognitive Modelling, ICCM'03, pp. 27–32. Universitats-Verlag Bamberg.Google Scholar
Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., & Treur, J. (2006). Reasoning by assumption: formalisation and analysis of human reasoning traces. Cognitive Science Journal 20, 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Sharpanskykh, A., & Treur, J. (2006). Specification and verification of dynamics in cognitive agent models. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT'06 (Nishida, T., Klusch, M., Sycara, K., & Yokoo, M., Eds.), pp. 247–254. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., & Treur, J. (2007). A language and environment for analysis of dynamics by SimulaTiOn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 16(3), 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, T., Sharpanskykh, A., & Treur, J. (2008). Modelling complex systems by integration of agent-based and dynamical systems models. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Complex Systems, ICCS'06 (Minai, A., Braha, D., & Bar-Yam, Y., Eds.). New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., van Langen, P.H.G., Ruttkay, Zs., & Treur, J. (1994). On formal specification of design tasks. Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘94, Proc. AID’94 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 535–552. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., van Langen, P.H.G., & Treur, J. (1996). A logical theory of design. Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD, Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop Formal Methods in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 243–266. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies. London: Pitman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D.A. (1999). Model Checking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corkill, D.D. (2000). When Workflow doesn't work: issues in managing dynamic processes, Proc. Design Project Support using Process Models Workshop, 6th Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Design, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Dixon, J.R. (1987). On research methodology towards a scientific theory of engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 1, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, D.A. (1991). Principles of Automated Theorem Proving. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. (2005). Temporal development methods for agent-based systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 10, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, A. (2003). Temporal logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#2Google Scholar
Galton, A. (2006). Operators vs arguments: the ins and outs of reification. Synthese 150, 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavrila, I.S., & Treur, J. (1994). A formal model for the dynamics of compositional reasoning systems. Proc. 11th European Conf. Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'94 (Cohn, A.G., Ed.), pp. 307–311. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gero, J., & Kannengiesser, U. (2006). A function–behaviour–structure ontology of processes. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition, DCC'06 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 407–422. New York: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (1992). Logics of Time and Computation, 2nd ed., LNCS, Vol. 7. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Heller, M., & Westfechtel, B. (2003). Dynamic project and workflow management for design processes in chemical engineering. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Process Systems Engineering (PSE 2003), Kunming, China, June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, J.N. (2004). Is design theory possible? Journal of Information Technology: Theory and Application 6, 73–82.Google Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1995). Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Jonker, C.M., & Treur, J. (2002). Compositional verification of multi-agent systems: a formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 11, 51–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonker, C.M., & Treur, J. (2003). Modelling the dynamics of reasoning processes: reasoning by assumption. Cognitive Systems Research Journal 4, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., & Wijngaards, W.C.A. (2002). Requirements specification and automated evaluation of dynamic properties of a component-based design. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. AI in Design, AID'02 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 547–570. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., & Wijngaards, W.C.A. (2003). A temporal modelling environment for internally grounded beliefs, desires and intentions. Cognitive Systems Research Journal 4(3), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, C., & Greenstreet, M.R. (1999). Formal verification in hardware design: a survey. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems 4(2), 123–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, R., & Sergot, M.A. (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzano, M. (1996). Extensions of First Order Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mavris, D.N., Bandte, O., & DeLaurentis, D.A. (1999). Robust design simulation: a probabilistic approach to multidisciplinary design. AIAA Journal of Aircraft 36(1), 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, K.L. (1993). Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. PhD Thesis. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagai, Y., & Taura, T. (2006). Formal description of concept-synthesizing process for creative design. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition, DCC'06 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 443–460. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Reich, Y. (1995). A critical review of General Design Theory. Research in Engineering Design 7, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpanskykh, A., & Treur, J. (2005). Verifying Interlevel Relations within Multi-Agent Systems: Formal Theoretical Basis. Technical Report TR-1701AI, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Accessed at http://hdl.handle.net/1871/9777Google Scholar
Sharpanskykh, A., & Treur, J. (2006). Verifying interlevel relations within multi-agent systems. Proc. 17th European Conf. Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'06, pp. 290–294. New York: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Smithers, T. (1996). On knowledge level theories of design process. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Design, AID'96 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 561–579. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smithers, T. (1998). KLDE—a knowledge level theory of design process. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Design, AID'98 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 3–21. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sosa, R., & Gero, J.S. (2005). A computational study of creativity in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(4), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. (1990). Automata on infinite objects. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Formal Models and Semantics (van Leeuwen, J., Ed.), Vol. B, pp. 133–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T. (1994). From General Design Theory to knowledge intensive engineering. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 8, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1985). Extended general design theory. In Design Theory for CAD (Yoshikawa, H., & Warman, E.A., Eds.), pp. 95–130. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Treur, J. (1991). A logical framework for design processes. Intelligent CAD Systems III. Proc. 3rd Eurographics Workshop on Intelligent CAD Systems (ten Hagen, P.J.W., & Veerkamp, P.J., Eds.), pp. 3–20. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J.F.A.K. (1983). The Logic of Time: A Model-Theoretic Investigation Into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warfield, J.N. (1994). A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems Design. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H. (1981). General design theory and a CAD system. Man–Machine Communication in CAD/CAM, Proc. IFIP Working Group 5.2 Working Conf. 1980 (Sata, T., & Warman, E.A., Eds.), pp. 35–58. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar