比较计算设计创意系统的初步思考

IF 1.2 Q4 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI:10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478
David C. Brown
{"title":"比较计算设计创意系统的初步思考","authors":"David C. Brown","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Initial thoughts on comparing computational design creativity systems\",\"authors\":\"David C. Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文描述了对模型的初步调查,这些模型可能有助于描述和比较计算设计创造力(CDC)系统。现有的创造性系统比较方法FACE模型受到了批评,并发现它与设计系统的匹配很弱。根据这一发现,提出了一种更面向设计的、基于本体论的替代方法,该方法根据面向设计的过程描述系统。文献中关于设计推理过程的各种建议被评估为包含在可用于CDC比较的过程本体中,使用在本文中开发和提出的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Initial thoughts on comparing computational design creativity systems
Abstract This paper describes an initial investigation into models that might be useful to describe and compare computational design creativity (CDC) systems. An existing approach to creative system comparison, the FACE model, is critiqued, and discovered to be a weak match with design systems. Informed by this discovery, an alternative more design-oriented, ontology-based approach is proposed that describes systems in terms of design-oriented processes. Various proposals in the literature about design reasoning processes are evaluated for inclusion in an ontology of processes that could be used for CDC comparison, using criteria that are developed and presented in this paper.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
27.80%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation is an international publication that provides a forum for discussing the nature and potential of creativity and innovation in design from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Design creativity and innovation is truly an interdisciplinary academic research field that will interest and stimulate researchers of engineering design, industrial design, architecture, art, and similar areas. The journal aims to not only promote existing research disciplines but also pioneer a new one that lies in the intermediate area between the domains of systems engineering, information technology, computer science, social science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and related fields. The journal covers, but is not restricted to, the following topics: ·Theories on Design Creativity and Innovation ·Cognition of Design Creativity ·Innovative Process ·Inventive Process ·Analogical Reasoning for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Design Synthesis ·Method and Tools for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Representation of Design Creativity and Innovation ·Education for Design Creativity and Innovation ·Concept Generation and Inspiration.
期刊最新文献
Design thinking mindset: a user-centred approach toward innovation in the Welsh creative industries The influence of industrial designers and developmental technologists on design-driven innovation and related mechanisms The rise of design in higher education and non-design students’ experiences of learning through design Managing design innovation challenges in a digital environment Diagnosing the socio-technical refrigeration system with Radical Innovation Design methodology to target innovations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1