Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:16:26.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design space exploration revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2006

PIETER H.G. VAN LANGEN  and
FRANCES M.T. BRAZIER
PIETER H.G. VAN LANGEN
Affiliation:
Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
FRANCES M.T. BRAZIER
Affiliation:
Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Design involves reasoning about descriptions of design artifacts, reasoning about design requirements, and reasoning about design process objectives (such as keeping to deadlines and available budget). Reasoning about these three aspects occurs during exploration, generation, and evaluation of partial design descriptions. Design space exploration involves exploration in all three related spaces: the space of partial descriptions of design artifacts, the space of design requirements, and the space of design process objectives. These spaces are vast. Explicit representation of the relations between elements in these three spaces provides the additional information needed to understand and reuse descriptions of partial design process traces, and to guide design exploration. In their Keynote Article, Woodbury and Burrow describe one of these spaces, namely, the space of design object descriptions, as a network of partial and intentional descriptions of design artifacts. The links between partial descriptions represent paths in design processes. Making the information compiled in these paths of exploration explicit, as proposed in this paper, extends the approach described by Woodbury and Burrow, increasing options for accessibility.

Keywords

Design ProcessDesign Space
Type
RESPONSE TO KEYNOTE
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 113 - 119
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

Brazier, F.M.T., van Langen, P.H.G., & Treur, J. (1997). A compositional approach to modelling design rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
Burge, J.E. & Brown, D.C. (2004). An integrated approach for software design checking using design rationale. Proc. First Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'04). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Candy, L. & Edmonds, E. (1996). Creative design of the Lotus bicycle: implications for knowledge support systems research. Design Studies 17(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Edmonds, E. & Candy, L. (2002). Creativity, art practice, and knowledge. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 91–95.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Hori, K. (1997). Where is, what is, and how can we use strategic knowledge? Proc. First Int. Workshop on Strategic Knowledge and Concept Formation (Candy, L. & Hori, K., Eds.), pp. 35–42. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.
Klein, R. (2000). Knowledge modelling in design—The MOKA framework. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design '00 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 77–102. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Ohsuga, S. (1997). Strategic knowledge makes knowledge based systems truly intelligent. Proc. First Int. Workshop on Strategic Knowledge and Concept Formation (Candy, L. & Hori, K., Eds.), pp. 1–24. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.
Smithers, T. (1998). Towards a knowledge level theory of design process. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design '98 (Gero, J.S. & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 3–21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Stacey, M., Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C. (2000). Signposting: an AI approach to supporting human decision making in design. Proc. ASME 2000 Design Engineering Technical Conf. (DETC'00), pp. 141–150.
Tomiyama, T. & Yoshikawa, H. (1987). Extended general design theory. Proc. IFIP WG5.2 Working Conf. Design Theory for CAD (Yoshikawa, H., & Warman, E.A., Eds.), pp. 95–125. Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland).
van Langen, P.H.G. (2002). The anatomy of design: foundations, models and applications. PhD Thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Sciences.