Advertisement

A Framework for Constructive Design Rationale

  • Udo Kannengiesser
  • John S. Gero
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for describing design rationale as a constructive notion rather than a fixed record of design reasoning. The framework is based on two views: an instance-based view of design rationale as an ordered set of decisions, and a state-space view of design rationale as a space of solution alternatives. The two views are connected with each other using the function-behaviour-structure (FBS) ontology. Constructive design rationale is defined and categorised based on reformulations of the function, behaviour or structure of the rationale. The drivers of the different reformulations are represented in the situated FBS framework.

Keywords

Design Rationale Design Decision Constructive Type Design Agent Elementary Path 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Moran, T., Carroll, J. (eds.): Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrík, I., Paech, B. (eds.): Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.R., Russell, D.M.: Generative design rationale: Beyond the record and replay paradigm. In: Moran, T., Carroll, J. (eds.) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, pp. 323–349. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tang, A., Babar, M.A., Gorton, I., Han, J.: A survey of architecture design rationale. The Journal of Systems and Software 79, 1792–1804 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burge, J.E., Brown, D.C.: Software engineering using RATionale. The Journal of Systems and Software 81, 395–413 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, D.C.: Assumptions in design and design rationale. In: Burge, J.E., Bracewell, R. (eds.) Workshop on Design Rationale: Problems and Progress. Design Computing and Cognition 2006, The Netherlands, Eindhoven (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gero, J.S.: Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11, 26–36 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25, 373–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, J., Lai, K.-Y.: What’s in design rationale? Human-Computer Interaction 6, 251–280 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruchten, P.: An ontology of architectural design decisions. In: 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management, The Netherlands, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Bellotti, V.M.E., Moran, T.P.: Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 6, 201–250 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 131. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. University of California, Berkeley (1970)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen, A., Bosch, J.: Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 109–120 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J.: Design rationale systems: Understanding the issues. IEEE Expert 12, 78–85 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sim, S.K., Duffy, A.H.B.: Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design 14, 200–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qian, L., Gero, J.S.: Function-behaviour-structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 289–312 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Basic Books, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suwa, M., Gero, J.S., Purcell, T.: Unexpected discoveries and s-inventions of design requirements: A key to creative designs. In: Gero, J.S., Maher, M.L. (eds.) Computational Models of Creative Design IV, pp. 297–320. University of Sydney, Australia (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Harper Collins, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gero, J.S., Fujii, H.: A computational framework for concept formation for a situated design agent. Knowledge-Based Systems 13, 361–368 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daughtry, J., Burge, J., Carroll, J.M., Potts, C.: Creativity and rationale in software design. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 34, 27–29 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo Kannengiesser
    • 1
    • 2
  • John S. Gero
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.NICTAAustralia
  2. 2.University of New South WalesAustralia
  3. 3.George Mason UniversityUSA
  4. 4.University of Technology–SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations