Designing with the Activity/Space Ontology
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.
KeywordsDesign Domain Building Design Design Knowledge Constraint Network Design Document
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.
- Alberts, L. K.: 1993, YMIR: An Ontology for Engineering Design, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Augenbroe, G.: 1996, COMBINE project: The broad perspective, Proceedings of the International Construction Information Technology Conference InCIT96, Sydney, pp. 103–108.Google Scholar
- 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
- Dechter, R., Meiri, I. and Pearl, J.: 1991, Temporal constraint networks, Artificial Intelligence, 49.Google Scholar
- De Chiara, J. and Callender, J.: 1990, Time-Saver Standards for Building Types, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Maher, M. L., Balachandran, B. and Zhang, D. M.: 1995, Case-Based Reasoning in Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Maher, M. L. and Skow, B.: 1997, Learning inside the virtual campus, ultiBASE, September, http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au.
- Panero, J. and Zelnik, M.: 1979, Human Dimensions and Interior Space, Architectural Press, London.Google Scholar
- Pheasant, S.: 1986, Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B. and Breuker, J.: 1993, KADS: A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
- 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
- Shaviv, E.: 1985, Layout design problems: Systematic approaches, in A. Pipes (ed.), Computer-Aided Architectural Design Features, Butterworths, London, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M.: 1996, Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications, The Knowledge Engineering Review.Google Scholar
- Varzi, A.: 1996, Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations: The prospects of mereotopology, Data and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
- VDS’96.: 1996, VDS’96 Elective: Web-based Brief, http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/vds96/elective/brief.html.
- 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
- 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