Designing with the Activity/Space Ontology

  • Simeon J. Simoff
  • Mary Lou Maher

Abstract

The concept of ontology entered the field of artificial intelligence as a formal system for representing domain concepts and their related linguistic realisations by means of basic elements. We present an ontology that delineates the categories of building design knowledge as “activity” and “space”: the Activity/Space (A/S) ontology. Activity is related to the functionality of the design, or the activities that can take place in a given space. This knowledge model addresses the need to represent requirements corresponding to both the functionality of the spaces in the building and the geometric or physical description of the building. It makes explicit the representation of activities, spaces, and their relationships. The A/S ontology specifically focuses on architectural design, the design of space, bounded by physical objects, in contrast to other types of design, such as the design of engines or computer chips where the solid parts of the design are the focus. The ontology provides a knowledge resource as well as a dynamic framework for representing the changing design description during the specification-design-use-redesign lifecycle.

Keywords

Design Domain Building Design Design Knowledge Constraint Network Design Document 
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. Akin, O., Aygen, Z., Chang, T-W., Chien, S-F., Choi, B., Donia, M., Fenves, S., Flemming, U., Garett, J., Gomez, N., Killiccote, H., Rivard, H., Sen, R., Snyder, J., Wen, J. Woodbury, R. and Zhang, Y.: 1997, A software environment to support early phases in building design, International Journal of Design Computing, 1, http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/joumal/index.html.
  2. Alberts, L. K.: 1993, YMIR: An Ontology for Engineering Design, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Augenbroe, G.: 1996, COMBINE project: The broad perspective, Proceedings of the International Construction Information Technology Conference InCIT96, Sydney, pp. 103–108.Google Scholar
  4. Bettini, C.: 1997, Time-dependent concepts: Representation and reasoning using temporal description logics, Data and Knowledge Engineering, 22(1), 1–38.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björk, B. C.: 1992, A conceptual model of spaces, space boundaries and enclosing structures, Automation in Construction, 1, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brachman, R. J.: 1990, The future of knowledge representation, Proceedings Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp. 1082–1092.Google Scholar
  7. Clancey, W. J.: 1993, The knowledge level reinterpreted: Modelling socio-technical systems, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 8, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechter, R., Meiri, I. and Pearl, J.: 1991, Temporal constraint networks, Artificial Intelligence, 49.Google Scholar
  9. Dong, A. and Agogino, A.: 1996, Text analysis for constructing design representations, in J. S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds), Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘96, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Chiara, J. and Callender, J.: 1990, Time-Saver Standards for Building Types, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Eastman, C.M., Chase, S.C. and Assal, H.H.: 1994, System architecture for computer integration of design and construction knowledge, in I. White and A. Tzonis (eds), Automation Based Creative Design, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar
  12. Gero, J. S.: 1990, Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design, AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gruber, T. R.: 1993, A translation approach to portable ontology specifications, Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruber, T. R.: 1995, Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guarino, N.: 1997, Understanding, building and using ontologies, International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 46(2/3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jägbeck, A.: 1994, MDA planner: Interactive planning tool using product models and construction methods, Computing in Civil Engineering, 8(4), 536–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, S-Y. and Hsu, F-J.: 1996, Spatial knowledge representation for iconic image database, inS. K. Chang, E. Jungert and G. Tortora (eds), Intelligent Image Database Systems, World Scientific, London, pp. 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehmann, F.: 1996, Machine-negotiated, ontology-based EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), in N. R. Adam and Y. Yesha (eds), Electronic Commerce: Current Research, Issues and Applications.Google Scholar
  19. Maher, M. L., Balachandran, B. and Zhang, D. M.: 1995, Case-Based Reasoning in Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  20. Maher, M. L. and Simoff, S.: 1997, Knowledge discovery in multimedia design case bases, in B. Verma and X. Yao (eds), Proceedings ICCIMA’97, Griffith University, Gold Coast, pp. 6–11.Google Scholar
  21. Maher, M. L., Simoff, S. J. and Cicogniani, A.: 1997a, Potentials and limitations of virtual design studio, Interactive Construction On-line, January, http://www.inconstruction.com.
  22. Maher, M. L., Simoff, S. J. and Mitchell, J.: 1997b, Formalising building requirements using an Activity/Space Model, Automation in Construction, 6, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maher, M. L. and Skow, B.: 1997, Learning inside the virtual campus, ultiBASE, September, http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au.
  24. Panero, J. and Zelnik, M.: 1979, Human Dimensions and Interior Space, Architectural Press, London.Google Scholar
  25. Pheasant, S.: 1986, Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  26. Reingruber, M. and Gregory, W. W.: 1994, The Data Modeling Handbook: A Best-Practice Approach to Building Quality Data Models, John Wiley, New York, pp. 296–299.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenman, M. A. and Gero, J. S.: 1996, Modeling multiple views of design objects in a collaborative CAD environment, INCIT’96 Proceedings, pp. 49–61.Google Scholar
  28. Saint-Diszier, P. and Viegas, E.: 1995, An introduction to lexical semantics from a linguistic and a psycholinguistic perspective, inP. Saint-Diszier and E. Viegas (eds), Computational Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B. and Breuker, J.: 1993, KADS: A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  30. Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B. and Jansweijer, W.: 1995. The KAKTUS view on the ‘O’ word, Proceedings of IJCA195 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Shaviv, E.: 1985, Layout design problems: Systematic approaches, in A. Pipes (ed.), Computer-Aided Architectural Design Features, Butterworths, London, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar
  32. Simoff, S. J. and Maher, M. L.: 1996, The UNIMEDIA initiative - The potential for construction information integration, Proceedings of the International Construction Information Technology Conference InCIT 96, pp. 33 - 41.Google Scholar
  33. Simoff, S. J. and Maher, M. L.: 1997, Implicit knowledge in symbolic case bases: Where, what and way to discovery, Tenth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M.: 1996, Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications, The Knowledge Engineering Review.Google Scholar
  35. Varzi, A.: 1996, Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations: The prospects of mereotopology, Data and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
  36. VDS’96.: 1996, VDS’96 Elective: Web-based Brief, http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/vds96/elective/brief.html.
  37. Watson, A.: 1995, Product models and beyond, in P. Brandon, and M. Betts.(eds), Integrated Construction Information E & FN Spon/Chapman and Hall, London, 160–172.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, P. R.: 1993, A view of STEP, in P. R. Wilson, M. J. Wozny and M. J. Pratt (eds), Geometric and Product Modeling, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simeon J. Simoff
    • 1
  • Mary Lou Maher
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Centre of Design ComputingThe University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations