Advertisement

Composite Shape Rules

  • Rudi Stouffs
  • Dan Hou
Conference paper

Abstract

Generally, non-terminal symbols such as labeled points are used to constrain rule application and, thereby, guide rule selection in the application of shape grammars. However, distinguishing between salient rules that offer the user design choices and deterministic rules that together and in a certain order (mechanically) complete a specific design transformation, may require other means of guiding rule selection that better reflect on the logic of the rule derivation process. We present a concept of composite shape rules embedding algorithmic patterns for rule automation. We denote these composite shape rules flows, and adopt a notation from regular expressions. In this paper, we describe the context that led to the conception of this approach, describe the sequencing mechanisms, and present a case study. We conclude with a brief discussion disclosing additional potential of the notation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work received some funding support from Singapore MOE’s AcRF start-up grant, WBS R-295-000-129-133. The second author also benefited from a China Scholarship Council grant. We want to thank Bui Do Phuong Tung and Bianchi Dy for their work on the SortalGI shape grammar interpreter and API.

References

  1. 1.
    Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plann B Plann Des 7(3):43–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yue K, Krishnamurti R (2013) Tractable shape grammars. Environ Plann B Plann Des 40(4):576–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MIT, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beirão JN, Duarte JP, Stouffs R (2009) Grammars of designs and grammars for designing—grammar based patterns for urban design. In: Tidafi T, Dorta T (eds) Joining languages, cultures and visions. Université de Montréal, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knight TW (1999) Shape grammars: six types. Environ Plann B Plann Des 26(1):15–31MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liew H (2004) SGML: a meta-language for shape grammar. PhD thesis. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grasl T, Economou A (2014) Towards controlled grammars. In: Thompson EM (ed) Fusion, 2nd vol. eCAADe, Brussels, pp 357–363Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stiny G, Mitchell WJ (1978) The Palladian grammar. Environ Plann B Plann Des 5(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palladio A (1965) The four books of architecture. Dover, New York (Reprinted from the 1738 translation by Isaac Ware of I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiny G, Mitchell WJ (1978) Counting Palladian plans. Environ Plann B Plann Des 5(2):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stouffs R (2016) Description grammars: a general notation. Environ Plann B Urban Anal Smart Cities 45(1):106–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hou D, Stouffs R (2018) An algorithmic design grammar for problem solving. Autom Constr 94:417–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Tianjin UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations