比较计算设计创意系统的初步思考

IF 1.2 Q4 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI:10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478

David C. Brown

{"title":"比较计算设计创意系统的初步思考","authors":"David C. Brown","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":"7 1","pages":"15 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Initial thoughts on comparing computational design creativity systems\",\"authors\":\"David C. Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"15 - 3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文描述了对模型的初步调查，这些模型可能有助于描述和比较计算设计创造力(CDC)系统。现有的创造性系统比较方法FACE模型受到了批评，并发现它与设计系统的匹配很弱。根据这一发现，提出了一种更面向设计的、基于本体论的替代方法，该方法根据面向设计的过程描述系统。文献中关于设计推理过程的各种建议被评估为包含在可用于CDC比较的过程本体中，使用在本文中开发和提出的标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Initial thoughts on comparing computational design creativity systems

Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING-

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

27.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation is an international publication that provides a forum for discussing the nature and potential of creativity and innovation in design from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Design creativity and innovation is truly an interdisciplinary academic research field that will interest and stimulate researchers of engineering design, industrial design, architecture, art, and similar areas. The journal aims to not only promote existing research disciplines but also pioneer a new one that lies in the intermediate area between the domains of systems engineering, information technology, computer science, social science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and related fields. The journal covers, but is not restricted to, the following topics: ·Theories on Design Creativity and Innovation ·Cognition of Design Creativity ·Innovative Process ·Inventive Process ·Analogical Reasoning for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Design Synthesis ·Method and Tools for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Representation of Design Creativity and Innovation ·Education for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Concept Generation and Inspiration.