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

Transportation Encapsulation Univer Peake 

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