Object Emergence in 3D Using a Data-Driven Approach

  • J. S. Gero
  • J. C. Damski
Chapter

Abstract

This paper presents an object representation based on the concept of infinite maximal planes. Constraints on the properties of infinite maximal planes are used to define objects. A process model of object emergence which relies on this representation is developed. A data-driven approach to object emergence is demonstrated.

Keywords

Symbolic Representation Closed Region Topological Constraint Adjacent Group Closed Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Edmonds, E. and Soufi, B.: 1992, The computational modelling of emergent shapes in design, in J. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Preprints Computational Models of Creative Design, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 173–190.Google Scholar
  2. Gero, J. S. and Yan, M.: 1994, Shape emergence by symbolic reasoning, Planning and Design: Environment and Planning B. (to appear).Google Scholar
  3. Gottschaldt, K.: 1926, Uber den einfluss der erfahrung auf die Wahrnehmung von figuren, Psychologische Forschung 8, 261–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Granovskaya, R., Bereznaya, I. and Grigorieva, A.: 1987, Perception of Forms and Forms of Perception, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Krishnamurti, R.: 1980, The arithmetic of shapes, Environment and Planning B 7, 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Krishnamurti, R.: 1981, The construction of shapes, Environment and Planning B 8, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Krishnamurti, R. and Earl, C. F.: 1992, Shape recognition in three dimensions, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19, 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maher, M. L., Gero, J. S. and Saad, M.: 1993, Synchronous support and emergence in collaborative CAAD, in U. Flemming and S. V. Wyk (eds), CAAD Futures ’93, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 455–470.Google Scholar
  9. Marr, D.: 1982, Vision, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  10. Purcell, A. and Gero, J.: 1991, The effects of examples on the results of a design activity, in J. Gero (ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design ’91, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 525–542.Google Scholar
  11. Reed, S. K.: 1974, Structural descriptions and the limitations of visual imagery, Memory and Cognition 2(2), 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schön, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Schön, D. and Wiggins, G.: 1992, Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing, Design Studies 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stiny, G.: 1980, Introduction to shape and shape grammars, Environment and Planning B 7, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stiny, G.: 1981, A note on the description of designs, Environment and Planning B 8, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stiny, G.: 1986, A new line on drafting systems, Design Computing 1, 5–19.Google Scholar
  17. Stiny, G.: 1990, What is design?, Planning and Design: Environment and Planning B 17, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tan, M.: 1990, Saying what it is by what it is like—describing shapes using line relationship, in M. McCullough, W. J. Mitchell and P. Purcell (eds), The Electronic Design Studio, MIT, Cambridge, pp. 201–214.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Gero
    • 1
  • J. C. Damski
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Centre of Design Computing, Department of Architectural and Design ScienceUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations