Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:09:01.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling dialogue with mixed initiative in design space exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2006

SAMBIT DATTA
SAMBIT DATTA
Affiliation:
School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exploration with a generative formalism must necessarily account for the nature of interaction between humans and the design space explorer. Established accounts of design interaction are made complicated by two propositions in Woodbury and Burrow's Keynote on design space exploration. First, the emphasis on the primacy of the design space as an ordered collection of partial designs (version, alternatives, extensions). Few studies exist in the design interaction literature on working with multiple threads simultaneously. Second, the need to situate, aid, and amplify human design intentions using computational tools. Although specific research and practice tools on amplification (sketching, generation, variation) have had success, there is a lack of generic, flexible, interoperable, and extensible representation to support amplification. This paper addresses the above, working with design threads and computer-assisted design amplification through a theoretical model of dialogue based on Grice's model of rational conversation. Using the concept of mixed initiative, the paper presents a visual notation for representing dialogue between designer and design space formalism through abstract examples of exploration tasks and dialogue integration.

Keywords

Design SpacesExplorationGenerationMixed InitiativeNavigation
Type
RESPONSE TO KEYNOTE
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 129 - 142
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aït-Kaći, H. & Cosmo, R.D. (1993). Compiling Order-Sorted Feature Term Unification. Technical Report No. PRL-TN-7. Paris: Digital Paris Research Laboratory.
Allen, J. F. (1999). Mixed initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(6), 14–23.Google Scholar
Allen, J.F., Ferguson, G., & Schubert, L.K. (1996). Planning in complex worlds via mixed-initiative interaction. In Advanced Planning Technology: Technological Achievements of the ARPA/ROME Laboratory Planning Initiative (Tate, A., Ed.), pp. 53–60. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., & Resnick, L.A. (1989). CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects. Proc. 1989 ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data (Sigmod) Int. Conf. Management of Data, pp. 58–67.
Burrow, A.L. (2003). Computational design and formal languages. PhD Thesis. University of Adelaide, Department of Computer Science.
Burrow, A.L. & Woodbury, R. (1999). π-Resolution and design space exploration. Computers in Building: Proc. CAADF '99 Conf. (Augenbroe, G. & Eastman, C., Eds.), pp. 291–308. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
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. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Datta, S. & Woodbury, R. (2002). A graphical notation for mixed-initiative dialogue with generative design systems. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 25–40. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Ferguson, G. & Allen, J.F. (1994). Arguing about plans: plan representation and reasoning for mixed-initiative planning. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. AI Planning Systems, pp. 43–48. Chicago.
Franz, B. & Jrg, S. (1994). Unification theory. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (Gabbay, D., Hogger, C. & Robinson, J., Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics (Cole, P. & Morgan, J., Eds.), Vol. 3, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic.
Hakim, M. & Garrett, J.H.J. (1993). Using description logic for representing engineering design standards. Journal of Engineering with Computers 9(1), 108–124.Google Scholar
Heisserman, J. (1991). Generative geometric design and boundary solid grammars. PhD Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University, College of Fine Arts, Department of Architecture.
Kasper, R.T. & Rounds, W.C. (1990). The logic of unification in grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Kiefer, B. & Fettig, T. (1995). FEGRAMED—An interactive graphics editor for feature structures (Research Report No. RR-95-06). Saarbrücken, Germany: German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI).
Knight, K. (1989). Unification: a multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computing Surveys 21(1), 93–124.Google Scholar
Kochhar, S. (1994). A paradigm for human–computer cooperation in design. Computer Graphics and Applications 17(16), 54–65.Google Scholar
Lambrix, P. (1996). Part-whole reasoning in description logics. PhD Dissertation. Lingköping University.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision (Winston, P.H., Ed.), pp. 211–277. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Piela, P. (1989). ASCEND, an object-oriented computer environment for modeling and analysis. PhD Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Chemical Engineering.
Piela, P., McKelvey, R., & Westerberg, A. (1993). An introduction to the ASCEND modeling system: its language and interactive environment. Journal of Management Information Systems 9(3), 91–121.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics. In Fundamentals, Vol. 13. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Pollard, C.J. & Moshier, M. (1990). Unifying partial descriptions of sets. In Information, Language and Cognition (Hanson, P., Ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 285–322. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schulte, C. (1997). Oz Explorer: A visual constraint programming tool. In Proc. Fourteenth Int. Conf. Logic Programming (Naish, L., Ed.), pp. 286–300. Leuven, Belgium: MIT Press.
Sutherland, I.E. (1963). Sketchpad—a man–machine graphical communication system. Proc. Spring Joint Computer Conf., Vol. 23, pp. 328–346.
Woodbury, R., Burrow, A., Datta, S., & Chang, T. (1999). Typed feature structures and design space exploration. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 13(4), 287–302.Google Scholar
Woodbury, R., Datta, S., & Burrow, A. (2000). Erasure in design space exploration. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '00 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 521–544. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Zeller, A. (1997). Configuration management with version sets—a unified software versioning model and its applications. PhD Dissertation. TU Braunschweig.
Zeller, A. & Snelting, G. (1995). Handling version sets through feature logic. Proc. 5th European Software Engineering Conf. (ESEC) (Schfer, W. & Botella, P., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 989, pp. 191–204.