比较计算设计创意系统的初步思考

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research 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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"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\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"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\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","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

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.