Advertisement

Formulation

  • Christopher V. Jones
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 6)

Abstract

Once a conceptual model of the problem has been constructed (either formal or informal, visual or not), the next step in mathematical programming usually involves constructing a formal, mathematical representation of the problem, that is, a formulation.

Keywords

Decision Variable Modeling Language Unify Modeling Language Transportation Problem Transportation Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Schrage L. Linear, Integer and Quadratic Programming with UNDO. Palo Alto (CA): Scientific Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Fourer R, Gay DM, Kernighan BW. AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. South San Francisco (CA): The Scientific Press, 1993. URL: http: //www. iems. nwu. edu/ampl/ampl. html Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brooke A, Kendrick D, Meeraus A. GAMS: A User’s Guide, Release 2.25. South San Francisco (CA): The Scientific Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Maximal Software, Inc. MPL Modeling System. Arlington (VA): Maximal Software, Inc., 1994. URL: http: //www. site. gmu. edu/~bjarnik Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hürliman T. LPL: A structured language for linear programming modeling. OR Spectrum, 1988; 10: 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Geoffrion AM. The SML language for structured modeling. Operations Research, 1992; 40(1): 38–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Greenberg HJ. MODLER: Modeling by object-driven linear elemental relations. Annals of OR, 1992; 38: 239–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Greenberg H. J. Modeling by Object-Driven Linear Elemental Relations: A User’s Guide for MODLER. Boston (MA): Kluwer, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Chesapeake Decision Sciences. MIMI/LP User’s Manual. New Providence (NJ): Chesapeake Decision Sciences, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Welch JS. PAM—a practitioner’s approach to modeling. Management Science, 1987; 33(5): 610–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Piela P. ASCEND: An Object-Oriented Computer Environment for Modeling and Analysis, [dissertation], Pittsburgh (PA): Carnegie-Mellon University, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Piela P, McKelvey R. An introduction to ASCEND: Its language and interactive environment. Technical report, Pittsburgh (PA) Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel User’s Guide Version 5.0. Redmond (WA): Microsoft Corporation, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Lotus Development Corporation. Improv for Windows Release 2.0 Reference Manual. Cambridge (MA): Lotus Development Corporation, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Savage S. Lotus Improv as a modeling language. In ORSA/TIMS Joint National Meeting, San Francisco (CA): 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Collaud G, Pasquier-Boltuck J. gLPS: A graphical tool for the definition and manipulation of linear problems. European Journal of Operations Research, 1994; 72: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Glover F, Klingman D, McMillan C. The Netform concept: A more effective model form and solution procedure for large scale nonlinear problems. Technical report, Springfield (VA): National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Steiger DM, Sharda R, LeClaire B. Graphical interfaces for network modeling: A model management system perspective. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1993; 5(3): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Ma PC, Murphy FH, Stohr E.A. A graphics interface for linear programming. Communications of the ACM, 1989; 32(8): 996–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Choobineh J. A diagramming technique, for representation of linear programming models. Omega, 1991; 19(1): 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Geoffrion AM. Integrated modeling systems. Computer Science in Economics and Management, 1989; 2: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Geoffrion AM. The formal aspects of structured modeling. Operations Research, 1989; 37(1): 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Harnacher S. A diagram representation for operations research problems. Technical Report 93-04A: Ecole Centrale Paris, 1993. International Transactions on Operations Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Chari K, Sen T. A graphical approach to structured modeling: Model graphs and model instantiations. Technical report, Harrisonburg (VA): Department of Information and Decision Sciences, College of Business, James Madison University, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Fourer R, Gay DM. Expressing special structures in an algebraic modeling language. Technical report, Evanston (IL): Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Greenberg HJ, Murphy FH. Views of mathematical programming models and their instances. Decision Support Systems, 1993; 13(1): 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Bramley R, Loos T. EMILY: A visualization tool for large sparse matrices. Technical Report 412, Bloomington (IN) 47405-4101: Computer Science Department (IN) University, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Hong SN, Mannino MV, Greenberg B. Measurement theoretic representation of large, diverse model bases: The unified modeling language: L U. Technical report, Austin (TX): Department of Management Science and Information Systems, The University of Texas at Austin, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Wegner P. Concepts and paradigms of object-oriented programming. OOPS Messenger, 1990; 1(1): 7–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Primal Solutions, Inc. Analytics User Manual. Palo Alto (CA): Primal Solutions, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Lindo Systems, Inc. LINGO Optimization Modeling Language. Chicago: Lindo Systems, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Roberts DD. The Existential Graphs of Charles S. Peirce. The Hague: Mouton, 1973.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Chang SK, editor. Principles of Visual Language Systems. Old Tappan (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Chang SK, Ichikawa T, Ligomenides PA. Visual Languages. New York: Plenum Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Shu NC. Visual Programming. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Conway RW, Maxwell WL, Worona SL. User’s Guide to XCELL Factory Modeling System. Palo Alto (CA): The Scientific Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Murphy FH, Stohr EA, Asthana A. Representation schemes for linear programming models. Management Science, 1992; 38(7): 964–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Jones CV, Krishnan R. A visual, syntax-directed environment for automated model development. Technical report, Burnaby (BC), V5A 1S6 CANADA: Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Chen P. The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1976; 1(1): 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Petre M. Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM, 1995; 38(6): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Hutchins EL, Hollan JD, Norman DA. Direct manipulation interfaces. In Norman DA, Draper SW, editors, User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 87–124. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Shneiderman B. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Computer, 1983; 16(8): 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Angehrn AA. Modeling by example: A link between users, models and methods in dss. European Journal of Operational Research, 1992; 55(3): 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Angehrn AA, Lüthi HJ. Intelligent decision support systems: A visual interactive approach. Interfaces, 1990; 20(6): 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Maulsby DL, Witten IH, Kittlitz KA. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. Computer Graphics, 1989; 23(3): 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Myers BA. Visual programming, programming by example and program visualization; a taxonomy. SIGCHI Bulletin, 1986; 17(4): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Myers BA. Creating User Interfaces by Demonstration. Boston: Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Myers BA, Guise DA, Dannenberg RB, Vander Zanden B. Garnet: Comprehensive support for graphical, highly interactive user interfaces. IEEE Computer, 1990; 23(11): 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Fourer R. Modeling languages versus matrix generators for linear programming. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 1983; 9: 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Geoffrion AM. Indexing in modeling languages for mathematical programming. Management Science, 1992; 38(3): 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Greenberg HJ, Murphy FH. A comparison of mathematical programming modeling systems. Annals of Operations Research, 1992; 38: 177–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher V. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations