• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years
 

Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years

on

  • 3,204 views

Keynote presentation at workshop 'Shape grammar implementation: from theory to usable software', Design Computing and Cognition 2010 conference, 11 Jul 2010, Stuttgart

Keynote presentation at workshop 'Shape grammar implementation: from theory to usable software', Design Computing and Cognition 2010 conference, 11 Jul 2010, Stuttgart

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,204
Views on SlideShare
3,200
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 4

http://www.docseek.net 1
http://www.pinterest.com 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 20 minutes available for talkStuttgart was the place I landed when I first visited Europe almost exactly 35 years ago!
  • All possible subshapes of S that can be produced by transformations of A.A: 4 lines; S: 8 lines22 subshapes shown here, none of which can be found if using non-decomposable representation30 segments needed in that case
  • Conceptual Design Tool RequirementsNotes for the DCC-2010 Workshop:CONCEPTUAL COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN TOOLS -bridging the gap between abstract requirements and concrete implementation strategiesBy Volker Mueller and IvankaIordanova, Workshop Co-ChairsEase of use. Considering the concept of affordance the relationship to ease of use may be obvious. A high level of affordance in a tool means that those “afforded” aspects of the tool are obvious to the tool’s users, and with increasing levels of digital tool literacy more aspects of the tool may offer themselves to users. When examining popular conceptual design tools and interviewing designers, one very important factor for conceptual tool selection is how transparent (i.e. invisible) the tool’s use is to the design process.Modeling capabilities. Given sufficient ease of use, designers will gravitate towards tools they know will support generation of the design artifacts that will express their design intent. Designers that are “blob-oriented” will trade-off a more limited tool’s ease of use for the modeling capabilities they must have to express their designs and will use more complex modeling tools. From an abstract perspective, specific modeling capabilities are prerequisites to representational multiplicity and representational flexibility.Visualization capabilities. Given sufficient ease of use and modeling capabilities, the general assertion is that designers will gravitate towards tools they know will let them show their designs in the light and visual expression (atmosphere/ambiente) that align best with the state of their design (idea sketch versus elaborately developed detail design) or highlight the experiential notion they want associated with their designsMultiplicity. Multiplicity means support of many designers and many workflows with various workflows for each designer. It affords method and tool selection based on the design problem. Necessarily it supports multiplicity of opinions in a community for knowledge exchange (DCC 2008 workshop).Flexibility. Flexibility is seen as expansion of representational flexibility and including diagram support, as well as support of changing interface modes, for example 2D, 3D, sketching, haptic devices, and true 3D devices. It also means flexibility in the choice of representational modes, including mathematical representation of geometry. It strongly corresponds to multiplicity by supporting changes in workflows. Extensibility can be considered a requirement, as well (DCC 2008 workshop; also “representational flexibility” in Berente et al. 2008.)Simultaneity Simultaneity includes synchronization and aspects of temporal and spatial traceability. It allows for concurrent models, of course with semantic coherence; pursuit of simultaneous, parallel paths of design; and side-by-side investigations, for example ofparameter set history, relationships, and solutions or solution spaces (DCC 2008workshop).Environment.Environment is meant as providing full context for the design object and itsfunctioning and use. For example climate,topography, and urban context (DCC 2008workshop).SemanticsThe capability to express semantic information while providing semantic coherenceacross the design domain (Berente et al. 2008).Entity identity as consistent and non-redundant data objects with multiple,unambiguously linked representations.Entity identity vs. emergence.Unique objects with multiple presentations vs. emergence -possibility to change thesemantics, etc. of a representation in order to let it play a different role in the object ofdesign.Entity linkagesLinkages between entities including aspects of both temporal and spatial traceabilitywhich require linkages to trace. (DCC 2008 workshop).Abstract objects.Representation of abstract objects and phenomena, like ideas, culture, experience,notions, associations, and other nonbuilding information (DCC 2008 workshop).Diagram support.Support of diagramming and diagrams (DCC 2008 workshop).History and Design Space exploration. History is an additional criterion, perpendicular to simultaneity and large part oftemporal traceability. Cp. “synchronization” and “temporal traceability” in Berente etal. 2008. Design Space exploration includes possibility to browse and learn fromprevious designs or other objects. (DCC 2008 workshop.)(Re)generativity.Regenerativity is seen as capability to reconstruct model data. It highlights the need fordesigners to recreate complicated design geometries in order to effectively understandaspects of the design – mere inspection of geometry across multiple representations andthe related documentation is sometimes not enough to find inconsistencies and errors.In such situations, designers need to recreate the geometry to fully learn about it(Berente et al. 2008).References:BERENTE, N., SRINIVASAN, N., LYYTINEN, L., YOO, Y., 2008. Design Principles For IT In DoublyDistributed Design Network (innovation.temple.edu/ICIS%2008%20design%20principles.pdf)PENG, W. AND GERO, J. S., 2006. Concept formation in a design optimization tool. In: VANLEEUWEN, J. P. AND TIMMERMANS, H. J. P., eds. Innovations in design & decision support systems inarchitecture and urban planning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. pp. 293-308.IORDANOVA, I., 2008, Design Thinking and the Medium, presentation at the DCC-2008 DesignThinking Workshop.
  • Note that the definition of shape grammar has traditionally implied a maximal element representation that supports emergence.Over the decades, the term has been applied to unrelated work in computer graphics/computational geometry, as well as design grammars that use non maximal element representations (including many mentioned here).Which is why I prefer the term ‘design grammars’.
  • “Computer Implementation of Shape Grammars”James Gips, 1999, invited paper, Workshop on Shape Computation (MIT)http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdfInterfaceParametric grammarsSurprises & the subshape problemCurves, curved surfaces, curved objectsUnderlying representationsExtensions to shape grammars (colours, weights, sortal grammars)Difference between proof-of-concept and production software
  • EVALUATION OF A 3D SHAPE GRAMMAR IMPLEMENTATIONHAU HING CHAU, XIAOJUAN CHEN, ALISON McKAY, ALAN de PENNINGTONDCC 2004The following list is an attempt to characterise an idealised general shape grammar implementation in the context of supporting the geometric design of consumer products: Using maximal representation, thus enabling subshape recognition and shape emergence. Enabling automatic shape recognition under Euclidean transformations. Allowing parametric shape rules. Enabling automatic shape recognition for parametric shape grammars. Allowing three dimensional shapes. Allowing curvilinear basic elements. Incorporating an intuitive user interface. Providing aesthetic measures for ranking designs for automated selection. Supporting surfaces and solids. Providing unambiguous interpretation of resulting designs to their physical realisation.
  • “Computer Implementation of Shape Grammars”James Gips, 1999, invited paper, Workshop on Shape Computation (MIT)http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdfGeneration: most SG implementations focus on thisParsing: very difficult problem: I’m not aware of any implementations that do thisInference: even more difficult, although I suspect that some of the research is/could be aimed at identifying features that could be used to build grammars (Stephan Rudolph?)Implementations are now starting to provide environments for SG development, e.g. with built in drawing editors or links w/CAD software, e.g. AutoCAD
  • Broad generalisations: there are lots of exceptions, and I’ve likely omitted work (by intent or ignorance). Please save your rotten tomatoes: I will be available for tarring and feathering after the workshop.1987/9: Chase1996: Tapia GediteifForm: SheaMove from focus onAlgorithmsUser interaction/interfaceTypes of geometric elementsSpecific design problemsInterfaces (again)Integration into design process
  • Shown in Gips 1999 report from MIT workshop, updated here in DCC ‘04 paperEVALUATION OF A 3D SHAPE GRAMMAR IMPLEMENTATIONHAU HING CHAU, XIAOJUAN CHEN, ALISON McKAY, ALAN de PENNINGTONDCC 20041 Stanford Artificial Intelligence Language2 SeeLog developed at EdCAAD3 IBM CLP(R) compiler4 Macintosh Common LISP5 http://www.shapegrammar.org6 http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/CDL/7 http://www.architecture.mit.edu/~miri/shape2d/
  • SGI was implemented in Fortran (yes!) on a VAX 750(?780) using a terminal of the VT100 family with light pen input and Tectronix 4027 graphics output.  I had to write the device drivers for the graphical display on the VT100,  the light pen input and the Tectronix output. It required less than 1/4 mb for code and about 0.2 mb for storage.   When it was done George (Stiny of course) asked me to test out some pathological examples,  Naturally. And George said words to the effect "It works" That's the reward I got for 16 months work or thereabouts!  Anyways, the hut I worked, the computer I worked on  all got destroyed by fire and my shape grammar interpreter with it!  I particular like my last sentence on page 75 - I think it is still relevant today. Just to learn Prolog, I reimplemented SGI in C-Prolog with a graphical prolog toolkit on a VAX 780 on VT family terminal.  We didn't have a windowing system then (Rob Pike hadn't written his paper then I don't think).  The difference between the second and first SGI was that I used homogeneous coordinates here.  Made arithmetic easier.  No George, but I played his role and tested it against pathological examples.  Again it worked!  I think a shape grammar  interpreter is always a good project by which to learn a new programming language.I am atttaching so that you have the only other record of the original SGI interpreter manuscript.  This is the technical report that was referenced on the back pages of E&P B for ever so many years.  Excuse the smudgy figures but that is the glue on the backside of the original plot output and it dates back to 1982!
  • Glue marks and all!
  • Implementation in PrologIndependent of other work (Giraud & Earl)Looked at Krishnamurti’s representations/algorithmsReinvented interval algebra for my project (Allen 1983, which I discovered a few years after my Master’s thesis!)Still works in an old Mac interpreter! (ask for demos later!)
  • Not just about interface (presentation/selection) but also about classifying restrictionsRange of scales for patternsRestricted field/areaTypes of transformationsCompositions of integer translations multiples of 90° rotations, reflections along grid lines, integer proportional scalingsAfter presenting choiceTerminate the process and either accept or reject the resulting designLet the system generate a design n levels down the treeResize or remove the boundaries of the area of interestRestrict the area of rule application
  • Nice example of 3D basic grammars, with extension to fabrication, but lacking in decent interfaceRequired numerical input, running three programs (generator + viewers for rule & result)I got so frustrated trying to visualise rules using this I went ahead and got the workshop to make a set of blocks for me
  • MSc project @MIT; often overlooked as simple basic grammars, but a very nice interface; good pedagogical tool
  • Bridging Shape Grammar and Tangible Augmented Reality into CollaborativeDesign LearningIrene Rui Chen1, Xiangyu Wang2, Wei Wang31,2,3 Faculty ofArchitecture, Design and Planning, The University ofSydney, Australiarche0750@usyd.edu.auThis paper combines Tangible Augmented Realityand shape grammar into collaborative design learningto bridge the gaps such as the difficulties of imagingthe spatial form in a complex content and the obstacleof communication during the collaborative design.This work has been successful in mapping out a spaceof technical possibilities and providing a possiblesystem setup to pursue the innovative idea. It not onlydescribes the latent trends and assumptions that mightbe used to motivate and guide the design incooperative work, but also makes links with existingresearch in cognitive science and education.
  • Descriptions, possibly the first application since Stiny’s original paper on the description of designs
  • I have been working on parametric shape grammars.  I enclose a swf file of an interpreter for Queen Anne houses which was also used in another application that attempted to guesstimate the interior of a building from its external features and an assumption about its style in this case the Queen Anne House.  The rules are soft-coded - this is a true parametric shape grammar interpreter which generates the entire design space in which each node is mouseable.  You will have to wait for the papers on parametric shape grammars - I am still editing those - hopefully they will appear in E&P B soon.
  • FLW Prairie houses
  • DSSG w/U. Strathclyde (Arch), U. Leeds (Mech E) and Open University (Faculty of Technology)Next generation of CAD systemDSSG video 3:21
  • http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/enginuity/issue11/article6.htmlFor some time now architects and engineers have used computer programs to model complex geometry and test the structural stability of their designs. Now, a computer program has been developed to actually generate novel forms with a structural integrity. The program, known as eifForm, developed by Kristina Shea, Lecturer in Engineering Design and a co-director of the Engineering Design Centre, uses inputs related to engineering and spatial performance, cost, and fabrication, to generate a number of innovative alternatives for structural forms.The first full-scale prototype, a canopy/landscape installation which was designed using this programme, has recently been built in the courtyard of the Academie van Bouwkunst in Amsterdam. "I believe this is the first architectural structure built where both the form and related structure were generated by a computer via design parameters and conditions rather than explicitly describing geometry," comments Dr Shea. "The programme generates new structural forms that intelligently respond to given design conditions, e.g. courtyard dimensions and buildable area (avoid the tree!), required heights for flow of people through the structure, and maximum strut length, using a combination of structural analysis and optimisation. It is very exciting to build one of the generated designs and be able to walk through it, as the resultant structures are often very different to those that have conventionally been thought possible. However, they offer new possibilities in difficult structural design situations or just creating interesting spaces." The built design has generated much interest and discussion in the architectural and structural engineering community about the place in design practice for these emerging tools.The team, which supervised the design and construction, also included Neil Leach, (University of Bath); SpelaVidecnik, 2001 Corus/BD Architect of the Year, and Jeroen van Mechelen of the Academie. The design was constructed by students of the Academie, Dessau University and the University of Bath.The project was sponsored by Rodeca Systems.
  • They applied for it in 2006?
  • Consumer product, also looked at costsOthers such as Buick, Harley-Davidson, cross-over vehicles
  • Krishnamurti’s quote about SG being a good way to learn programming (language) Designing 2D and 3D Shape Grammars with Logic Programming Wing-Kwong Wong1, Wan-Ying Wang1, Bo-Yu Chen2, Sheng-Kai Yin2National Yunlin University of Science & Technology Computer Science & information Engineering1, Graduate School of Engineering Science & Technology2, Yunlin, Taiwan E-mail: {wongwk, g9217701, g9217704, g9310811}@yuntech.edu.tw

Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years Shape grammar implementations: the last 35 years Presentation Transcript

  • Shape grammar implementationsThe last 35 36 yearsScott C. ChaseArchitecture, Design & Media TechnologyAalborg UniversityShape grammar implementation: from theory to useable softwareDesign Computing and Cognition workshop, Stuttgart, 11 July 2010
  • 2 Outline  Overview & issues  Early history  Examples  Categorised by issueShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 3 Today‟s presentations  Li, Chau, Chen, Wang  A prototype system for developing two- and three-dimensional shape grammars  Trescak, Esteva, Rodriguez  Shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms  Hoisl, Shea  A 3D spatial grammar interpreter applet  Jowers, Earl  QI – a shape grammar interpreter for curved shapes  Ertelt, Shea  Shape grammar implementation for machining planning  Jowers, McKay  Shape grammar implementation with vision  Correia, Duarte, Leitão  MALAG: a discursive grammar interpreter for the online generation of mass customized housingShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 4 Challenge We want conceptual design tools that support designers‟ ways of thinking and working and enhance creativity, e.g. offering design alternatives difficult or not possible without the use of such tools.Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 5 Shape grammarsShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 6Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 7 EmergenceShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • Conceptual design tool requirements DCC 2010 workshop notes  Ease of use  Entity identity vs.  Modeling capabilities emergence  Visualization capabilities  Entity linkages  Multiplicity  Abstract objects  Flexibility  Diagram support  Simultaneity  History and Design  Environment Space exploration  Semantics  (Re)generativityShape grammar implementations: the last 36 years 8Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 9 SG implementation research  Representations & algorithms  geometry, other design attributes, control  User interaction/interface  Specific design problems  Integration into design processShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 10 Issues Gips 1999 1. Interface 2. Parametric grammars 3. Subshape problem 4. Curved elements 5. Representations 6. Extensions to SG 7. „Proof of concept‟ vs. production software 8. The „big enchilada‟ or „one piece at a time‟ http://www.shapegrammar.org/implement.pdfShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 11 Idealised general SG implementation Chau et. al (2004) 1. Subshape recognition and emergence 2. Shape recognition under Euclidean transformations 3. Parametric shape rules 4. Shape recognition for parametric grammars 5. 3D shapes 6. Curvilinear basic elements 7. Intuitive user interface 8. Aesthetic measures for ranking & selecting designs 9. Surfaces and solids 10. Unambiguous interpretation of designs to physical realisation Chau H H, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A, 2004, “Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation” in Design Computing and Cognition 04: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition Ed J S Gero (Kluwer, Dordrecht) 357-376Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 12 SG system tasks Gips 1999 1. Generation (design) 2. Parsing (analysis) 3. Inference (grammar construction) 4. CAD program for SG development (designer‟s aid)Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 13 History of implementations  Early work (1970s & 80s)  Primarily general interpreters  Middle period (1990s & early 2000s)  Broader work includes systems for specific design problems  Work includes systems that don‟t support emergence  Past decade: broad mix  General interpreters  Specific implementationissues  Specific design problemsShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 14 Shape emergeImplementations 1 Name Simple interpreter Reference Gips 1975 Tool(s) used SAIL1 nce No 2D/3D 2DChau et. al 2004 2 3 Shepard-Metzler analysis Shape grammar interpreter Gips 1974 Krishnamurti 1982 SAIL1 Conventional language No Yes 2D/3D 2D Krishnamurti and 4 Shape generation system Giraud 1986 PROLOG2 Yes 2D 5 Queen Anne houses Flemming 1987 PROLOG No 2D 6 Shape grammar system Chase 1989 PROLOG Yes 2D 7 Genesis (CMU) Heisserman 1991 C/CLP(R)3 No 3D 8 GRAIL Krishnamurti 1992 Yes 2D 9 Grammatica Carlson 1993 No 10 Stouffs 1994 Yes 2D/3D 11 Genesis (Boeing) Heisserman 1994 C++/CLP(R)3 No 2D/3D 12 GEdit5 Tapia 1996 LISP4 Yes 2D 13 Shape grammar editor Shelden 1996 AutoLISP Yes 2D Implementation of basic 14 grammar Simondetti 1997 AutoLISP No 3D Piazzalunga and 15 Shape grammar interpreter Fitzhorn 1998 ACIS Scheme No 3D 16 SG-Clips Chien et al 1998 CLIPS No 2D/3D Java/Open 17 3D Shaper Wang 1998 Inventor No 3D 18 Coffee maker grammar6 Michalek 1998 Java No 2D/3D 19 MEMS grammar Agarwal et al 2000 LISP 2D 20 Shaper 2D7 McGill 2001 Java No 2D U13 shape grammar 21 implementation Chau 2002 Perl Yes 3DShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 15 Shephard-Metzler analysis Gips 1974Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 16 Simple interpreter Gips 1975Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 17 SGI Krishnamurti 1982 1. Who has referenced Krishnamurti‟s 1982 report in their papers? 2. Who has actually seen the report?Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 18 SGIShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • SG interpreter Chase S C, 1989, "Shapes and Shape Grammars: From Mathematical Model to Computer Implementation" Environment and Planning B: Chase 1987 Planning and Design 16 215-242Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 20 Interface/InteractionShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • Grammar use & interaction Chase 2002 Design evaluation Grammar evaluation Grammar transformation Chase S C, 2002, "A model for user interaction in grammar-based design systems" Automation in Construction 11 161-172Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 22 Grammar interaction Chase 1987 & 2002Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 23 GEdit Tapia 1996 Tapia M, 1999, "A visual implementation of a shape grammar system" Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 59-73Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 24 3D Shaper Wang 1998Wang Y, Duarte J P, 2002, "Automatic generation and fabrication of designs" Automation in Construction 11 291-302 Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 years Design Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 25 Shaper 2D McGill 2001McGill M C, 2002, "Shaper2D: Visual Software for Learning Shape Grammars", in Design e-ducation: Connectingthe Real and the Virtual, Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Education in Computer Aided ArchitecturalDesign in Europe Eds K Koszewski, S Wrona (eCAADe, Warsaw) pp 148-151Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 26 Designing With Visionhttp://design.open.ac.uk/DVShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 27 SG & Tangible Augmented Reality Chen et al. 2009Chen I R, Wang X, Wang W 2009, "Bridging Shape Grammar and Tangible Augmented Reality intoCollaborative Design Learning" in Proceedings of the 2009 13th International Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work in Design (IEEE) 468-473Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 28 ExtensionsShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 29 Yingzao fashi grammar Li 2002Non-geometricattributesLi A I-K, 2002, "A prototype interactive simulated shape grammar", in Design e-ducation: Connecting the Real andthe Virtual, Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in EuropeEds K Koszewski, S Wrona (eCAADe, Warsaw) pp 314-317Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • QI (curves) Jowers I, 2006, Computation with curved shapes: Jowers 2006 Towards freeform shape generation in design, PhD thesis, The Open UniversityShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 31 Parametric SG interpreter Krishnamurti 2010Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 32 Graph grammars  Schmidt (from PhD 1995)  CampbellShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 33 GraphSynth Campbell 2010 http://www.graphsynth.comShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 34 Integration with design & production processesShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 35 Design Synthesis & Shape Generation McKay et al. 2007-08 http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/dssg … we anticipate three intertwined cycles Communication between the two The Shape The Synthesis designer System designing generating shapes shapesShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 36 Design Synthesis & Shape Generation McKay et al. 2007-08Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 37 Design Synthesis & Shape Generation McKay et al. 2007-08Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 38 Industrial strength interpretersShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 39 Genesis-PhD Heisserman 1991 Heisserman J, 1994, "Generative Geometric Design" IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 14 37-45Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 40 Genesis-Boeing Heisserman since 1991Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 41 EifForm Shea from 1997 Dome Canopy/landscape Planar truss grammar Shea K, 2002, "Creating Synthesis Partners" Architectural Design 72 42-45Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 42 SG interpreter patents McCormick & Cagan 2006/9 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7050051.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7502511.htmlShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 43 Specific design applicationsShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 44 Specific design applications  Product development  Coffeemaker (Agarwal & Cagan, 1998)  Dove (Chau, 2002)  Harley Davidson (Pugliese & Cagan, 2002)  Buick (McCormack et al., 2004)  Coca-Cola (Chen, 2005)  General shampoo bottle grammar (Chen 2005)  Architecture  MALAG (Duarte 2005)Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 45 Coffee maker grammar Agarwal et al 1999Agarwal M, Cagan J, 1998, "A Blend of Different Tastes: The Language of Coffee Makers" Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 25 205-226Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 46 MALAG Duarte 2005Duarte J P, 2005, "A discursive grammar for customizing mass housing: the case of Sizas houses at Malagueira"Automation in Construction 14 265-275Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • SGMP Ertelt & Shea 2009Ertelt C, Shea K, 2009 "Application of shape grammars to planning for CNC machining", in Proceedings of theASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information inEngineering Conference IDETC/CIEShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 48 Recent general interpretersShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 49 3D interpreter Chau 2002 Chau H H, Chen X, McKay A, de Pennington A, 2004, “Evaluation of a 3D shape grammar implementation” in Design Computing and Cognition 04: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition Ed J S Gero (Kluwer, Dordrecht) 357-376Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 50 SG development system Li et al. 2010Li, Andrew I-K, Chau H H, Chen L, Wang Y, 2009, "A Prototype System for developing two- and Three-Dimensional Shape Grammars", in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer AidedArchitectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA, Yunlin, Taiwan) 717-726Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • SGI (2) Trescak et al. 2009http://sourceforge.net/projects/sginterpreterShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 52 Interactive 3D Spatial Grammar System Hoisl & Shea 2010http://sourceforge.net/projects/spapperShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 53 Shape Designer (v2) Wong et al. 2004-5Wong W-K, Wan-Ying Wang W-Y, Bo-Yu Chen B-Y, Sheng-Kai Yin S-K, 2005, "Designing 2D and 3D ShapeGrammars with Logic Programming" in the 10th Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, TaiwanShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 54 In conclusion…  We still have a long way to go to make an impact on industry methods using grammar based approaches  Areas with a lot of activity; maturity?  Representations  Including extensions, e.g. curves, parametrics, non-geometric attributes  Interfaces  Promising areas  New methods of interaction  Integration w/design & production processesShape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010
  • 55 Demo time!Shape grammar implementations: the last 36 yearsDesign Computing & Cognition workshop, 11 July 2010