Skip to main content

Grammars for Making Revisited

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition '18 (DCC 2018)

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The domain of shape grammars has been recently extended to include the field of making. This paper examines what makes abstract shapes look like concrete spatial entities (things) and what changes to the shape grammar formalism are needed to support calculations with things. Several new grammars capable of handling things are developed. Algebras supporting these are briefly addressed as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also other papers in Computational Making, Design Studies Special Issue, November 2015, Vol. 41 Part A.

  2. 2.

    Advances in Implemented Shape Grammars: Solutions and Applications AIEDAM Special Issue, Spring 2018, Vol. 32, No. 2.

  3. 3.

    Formally: x ≤ u + v ⇒x ≤ u | x ≤ v; x ≤ u − v ⇒ x ≤ u & ¬(x ≤ v); x ≤ u · v ⇒ x ≤ u & x ≤ v and x ≤ u ⊕ v ⇒ [x ≤ u & ¬(x ≤ v)] | [x ≤ v & ¬(x ≤ u)], where &, |, ¬, and ⇒ stand for and, or, negation, and implication, respectively.

  4. 4.

    Based on Boolean identity (u − v) · w = u · (v − w), validity of which is shown by x ≤ (u − v) · w ⇒ x ≤ (u − v) & x ≤ w ⇒ x ≤ u & ¬(x ≤ v) & x ≤ w ⇒ x ≤ u & x ≤ w − v ⇒ x ≤  u · (w − v) so that (u − v) · w ≤ u · (w − v); x ≤  u · (w − v)  ⇒ x ≤ u & x ≤ (w − v) ⇒ x ≤ u & x ≤ w & ¬(x ≤ v) ⇒ x ≤ u − v & x ≤ w ⇒ x ≤ (u − v) · w so that u · (w − v) ≤ (u − v) · w and finally (u − v) · w = u · (w − v).

  5. 5.

    Indeed, rules a → b and g(a) → g(b), where g is a transformation, are equivalent. If the former applies to shape c under transformation t such that t(a) ≤ c then the latter applies under tg−1. That is, tg−1(g(a)) = t(a) ≤ c and [c − tg−1(g(a))] + tg−1(g(b)) = (c − t(a)) + t(b) = c′.

  6. 6.

    (x, x) ∈ R, (x, y) ∈ R ⇒ (y, x) ∈ R, (x, y) ∈ R & (y, z) ∈ R ⇒ (x, z) ∈ R, respectively, where R is a relation and x, y, and z are elements of the set on which R is defined.

  7. 7.

    For b − a < u < b, no combination of c, t(a − b) and t(u) can produce t(a) and t(b), and no combination of c, t(a) and t(b) can produce t(u) so that Ar(3) ≠ Ar(10). For u = b − a and u = b, no combination of c, t(a − b) and t(b − a) can produce t(a) and t(b), no combination of c, t(a − b) and t(b) can produce t(a), and combining t(a) and t(b) can produce t(a − b) and t(b − a) so that Ar(10) ⊂ Ar(3).

References

  1. Knight TW, Stiny G (2015) Making grammars: from computing with shapes to computing with things. Des Stud 41:8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stiny G (1990) What is a design. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Krstic D (2014) Algebras of shapes revisited. In: Gero JS (ed) DCC’12. Springer Science + Business Media B. V, pp 361–376

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carlson C, Woodbury R, McKelvey R (1991) An introduction to structure and structure grammars. Environ Plann B Plann Des 18:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Krstic D (2001) Algebras and grammars for shapes and their boundaries. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:97–103

    Google Scholar 

  7. Earl CF (1997) Shape boundaries. Environ Plann B Plann Des 17:669–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krstic D (2017) From shape computations to shape decompositions. In: Gero JS (ed) DCC’16. Springer Science + Business Media B. V, pp 361–376

    Google Scholar 

  9. Knight TW (1994) Transformations in design: a formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in visual arts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stiny G (1996) Useless rules. Environ Plann B Plann & Des 23:235–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stiny G (2012) What rule(s) should I use? Nexus Network J 13:15–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stiny G (1992) Weights. Environ Plann B Plann Des 19:413–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stiny G (1994) Shape rules: closure, continuity, and emergence. Environ Plann B Plann Des 21:S49–S78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krstic D (2005) Shape decompositions and their algebras. AIEDAM 19:261–276

    Google Scholar 

  15. Knight TW (2017) Craft, performance, and grammars. In: 2nd International workshop on cultural DNA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Djordje Krstic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Krstic, D. (2019). Grammars for Making Revisited. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '18. DCC 2018. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05363-5_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05363-5_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05362-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05363-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics