This paper deals with analysing and evaluating design suitability for a given environment. A design is deemed to “fit” into the environment in which it is planned to be built if it follows the same style and shows sufficient “closeness” to other buildings in the area. The knowledge about the designed building is encoded in the form of a labelled graph. To test the conformity of the design with a given style an ontology-based graph approach is proposed, while to calculate the degree of similarity of the design to other designs graph mining methods are used. The proposed approach is illustrated by examples of designing buildings in two styles which are well integrated with the environment.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. & Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press.
2.
Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T. & Swami, A. (1993). Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proc. of 1993 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference Management of Data (SIGMOD’93) (pp. 207–216). doi:10.1145/170035.170072.
3.
Beiro, J.N. (2012). City Maker: Designing Grammars for Urban Design. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
4.
Bhatt, M. & Freksa, C. (2015). Spatial computing for design – an artificial intelligence perspective. In J.S.Gero (Ed.), Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity (pp. 109–127).
5.
Bhatt, M., Hois, J. & Kutz, O. (2012a). Ontological modelling of form and function for architectural design. Applied Ontology Journal, 7, 233–267.
6.
Bhatt, M., Schultz, C. & Huang, M. (2012b). The shape of empty space: Human-centred cognitive foundations in computing for spatial design. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) 2012, Innsbruck, Austria.
7.
Bhatt, M., Schultz, C. & Thosar, M. (2014). Computing narratives of cognitive user experience for building design analysis: KR for industry scale computer-aided architecture design. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the 14th International Conference, KR 2014, Vienna, Austria.
8.
Bittner, T., Donnelly, M. & Winter, S. (2005). Ontology and semantic interoperability. In D.Prosperi and S.Zlatanova (Eds.), Large-Scale 3D Data Integration: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 139–160). CRCpress (Tailor & Francis).
9.
Buelinckx, H. (1993). Wren’s language of city church designs: A formal generative classification. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 645–676. doi:10.1068/b200645.
10.
buildingSMART (2013). IFC2x3, Retrieved from buildingSMART website, accessed on September 24, 2015, http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC2x3/TC1/html/index.htm.
11.
Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A. & Wilkinson, K. (2003). Jena: Implementing the Semantic Web Recommendations. Technical report HPL-2003-146, Laboratories HP, Bristol, Bristol.
12.
Chau, H.H. (2002). Preserving brand identity in engineering design using a grammatical approach. PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
13.
Correa, C. (2000). Housing and Urbanisation. Thames & Hudson: Urban Design Research Institute.
14.
Coyne, R.D., Rosenman, M.A., Radeford, A.D., Balachandran, M. & Gero, J.S. (1990). Knowledge Based Design Systems. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
15.
Cunliffe, S. & Loussier, J. (Eds.) (2006). Architecture Styles Spotter’s Guide: Classical Temples to Soaring Skyscrapers. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press.
16.
Davies, J. & Goel, A.K. (2001). Visual analogy in problem solving. In Proc. of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 377–382). Seattle, WA: Morgan Kaufmann.
17.
Dunlop, C. & Associates (2003). Architectural Styles. Dearborn Real Estate.
18.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
19.
Ercan, B. & Elias-Ozkan, S.T. (2015). Performance-based parametric design explorations: A method for generating appropriate building components. Design Studies, 38, 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.01.001.
20.
Fan, Z. & Zlatanova, S. (2011). Exploring ontologies for semantic interoperability of data in emergency response. Appl Geomat., 3, 109–122. doi:10.1007/s12518-011-0048-y.
21.
Flemming, U., Coyone, R., Gavin, T. & Rychter, M. (1999). A generative expert system for the design of building layouts – version 2. In B.Topping (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Computational Mechanics (pp. 445–464). Southampton: Publications.
22.
Forbus, K., Tomai, E. & Usher, J. (2003). Qualitative spatial reasoning for visual grouping in sketches. In Proc. of 16th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, Brasilia (pp. 79–86).
23.
Gero, J.S. & Kazakov, V. (2001). Entropic similarity and complexity measures for architectural drawings. Visual and spatial reasoning in design II. Key Center of Design Computing and Cognition, Sydney (pp. 147–161).
24.
Goel, A., Bhatta, S. & Stroulia, E. (1997). KRITIK: An early case-based design system. In M.L.Maher and P.Perl (Eds.), Issues and Applications of Case-Based Design (pp. 87–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
Goguen, J.A. & Burstall, R.M. (1984). Introducing institutions. In E.Clarke and D.Kozen (Eds.), Proc. Logics of Programming Workshop. LNCS (Vol. 164, pp. 221–256).
26.
Grabska, E. & Borkowski, A. (1996). Assisting creativity by composite representation. In J.S.Gero & F.Sudweeks (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Design’96 (pp. 743–759). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
27.
Grabska, E., Borkowski, A., Palacz, W. & Gajek, S. (2009). Hypergraph System Supporting Design and Reasoning. Berlin, Germany: EG-ICE International Workshop.
28.
Grabska, E., Łachwa, A. & Ślusarczyk, G. (2012). New visual languages supporting design of multi-storey buildings. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26, 681–690. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2012.03.009.
29.
Grabska, E. & Ślusarczyk, G. (2011). Knowledge and reasoning in design systems. Automation in Construction, 22, 927–934. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.03.009.
30.
Guarino, N., Oberle, D. & Staab, S. (2009). What is an ontology? Handbook on ontologies. In S.Staab and R.Studer (Eds.), International Handbooks on Information Systems (pp. 1–17). Springer.
31.
Haarslev, V. & Möller, R. (2001). RACER system description. In Proc. of IJCAR 2001. LNAI (Vol. 2083, pp. 701–706).
32.
Han, C., Kunz, J.C. & Law, K.H. (2002). Compliance Analysis for Disabled Access. Advances in Digital Government Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
33.
Han, J., Pei, J., Yin, Y. & Mao, R. (2004). Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation: A frequent-pattern tree approach. Data Min. and Know. Disc., 8, 53–87. doi:10.1023/B:DAMI.0000005258.31418.83.
Horrocks, I. (1998). The fact system. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX’98) (pp. 307–312). doi:10.1007/3-540-69778-0_30.
36.
Horrocks, I., Sattler, U. & Tobies, S. (1999). Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In H.G.McAllester and A.Voronkov (Eds.), Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning. LPAR (Vol. 99, pp. 161–180). doi:10.1007/3-540-48242-3_11.
37.
Huan, J., Wang, W. & Prins, J. (2003). Efficient mining of frequent subgraphs in the presence of isomorphism. In Proc. of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2003 (pp. 549–552). IEEE.
38.
Inokuchi, A., Washio, T. & Motoda, H.A. (2000). An apriori-based algorithm for mining frequent substructures from graph data. Proc. of PKDD, 2000, 87–92.
39.
Jupp, J. & Gero, J.S. (2010). Let’s look at style: Visual and spatial representation and reasoning in design. In S.Argamon, K.Burns and S.Dubnov (Eds.), The Structure of Style (pp. 159–195). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12337-5_8.
40.
Kiliccote, H., James, H., Garrett, J., Chmielenski, T.J. & Reed, K.A. (1994). The context-oriented model: An improved modeling approach for representing and processing design standards. In K.Khozeimeh (Ed.), First ASCE Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering (pp. 145–152). Washington, DC: ASCE.
41.
Knight, T. (1981). The forty-one steps: The language of Japanese tea-room designs. Environment and Planning B, 8, 213–238. doi:10.1068/b080213.
42.
Koch, W. (1980). A Handbook of European Architectural Styles. Foulsham & Co Ltd.
43.
Koning, H. & Eizengberg, J. (1981). The language of the Prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie houses. Environment and Planning B, 8, 295–323. doi:10.1068/b080295.
Langenhan, C., Weber, M., Liwicki, M., Petzold, F. & Dengel, A. (2013). Graph-based retrieval of building information models for supporting the early design stages. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27, 413–426. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2013.04.005.
46.
Lin, C.C. & Luh, D.B. (2009). A vision-oriented approach for innovative product design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23, 191–200. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2008.10.005.
47.
Macit, S., İlal, M., Günaydm, M. & Suter, G. (2013). İzmir Municipality Housing and Zoning Code Analysis and Representation for Compliance Checking. EG-ICE International Workshop. Vienna.
48.
McCormack, J.P., Cagan, J. & Vogel, C.M. (2004). Speaking the Buick language: Capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with a shape grammar. Design Studies, 25, 1–29. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00023-1.
49.
Park, S.H. & Gero, J.S. (2000). Categorisation of shapes using shape features. In J.S.Gero (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design’00 (pp. 203–223). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
50.
Paszyńska, A., Grabska, E. & Paszyński, M. (2012). A graph grammar model of the hp adaptive three dimensional finite element method. Part I. Fundamenta Informaticae, 114, 149–182.
51.
Pugliese, M.J. & Cagan, J. (2002). Capturing a rebel: Modeling the Harley–Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Research in Engineering Design – Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering, 13, 139–156.
52.
Scherer, R.J. & Schapke, S.E. (2011). A distributed multi-model-based Management Information System for simulation and decision-making on construction projects. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25, 582–599. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2011.08.007.
53.
Schorlemmer, M. & Kalfoglou, Y. (2008). Institutionalising ontology-based semantic integration. Journal of Applied Ontology, 3, 131–150.
54.
Schultz, C. & Bhatt, M. (2012). Multi-modal spatial data access for architecture design assistance. AIEDAM, special issue on: Design Computing and Cognition, 26, 177–203.
55.
Schürr, A., Winter, A. & Zündorf, A. (1995). Graph grammar engineering with PROGRES. In W.Schäfer and P.Botella (Eds.), Proc. of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC95). LNCS (Vol. 989, pp. 219–234).
56.
Sheth, A. (1998). Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: From system, syntax, structure to semantics. In M.Goodchild, M.Egenhofer, R.Fegeas and C.Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems (pp. 5–30). Kluwer Academic.
57.
Simon, H. (1975). Style in design. In C.Eastman (Ed.), Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design (pp. 287–309). London: Applied Science.
58.
Strug, B. & Ślusarczyk, G. (2009). Reasoning about designs through frequent patterns mining. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23, 361–369. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2009.06.007.
59.
Strug, B. & Ślusarczyk, G. (2011). Frequent pattern mining in a design supporting system. Key Engineering Materials, 450, 1–4. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.450.1.
60.
Sycara, K., Guttal, R., Koning, J., Narasimhan, S. & Navinchandra, D. (1992). CADET: A case-based synthesis tool for engineering design. International Journal of Expert Systems, 4, 157–188. doi:10.1016/0957-4174(92)90050-3.
61.
Ślusarczyk, G. & Piętak, P. (2013). Maintaining style of garden designs by using graph-based constraints. Automation in Construction, 36, 79–94. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.08.013.
62.
Tomanek, M. (2009). Searching for graph patterns and applications. MSc thesis, Jagiellonian University (in Polish).
63.
Turrin, M., von Buelow, P. & Stouffs, R. (2011). Design explorations of performance driven geometry in architectural design using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25, 656–675. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2011.07.009.
64.
Vieu, L., Borgo, S. & Masolo, C. (2008). Artefacts and roles: Modelling strategies in a multiplicative ontology. In C.Eschenbach and M.Grüninger (Eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp. 121–134).
65.
Vos, A. (1997). Case design specialists in FABEL. In M.L.Maher and P.Perl (Eds.), Issues and Applications of Case-Based Design, Maher (pp. 301–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
66.
Waloszek, W. (2007). Methods of structural analysis of ontologies based on description logic. PhD thesis, Gdańsk University of Technology (in Polish).
67.
Yan, X. & Han, J. (2002). gSpan: Graph-based substructure pattern mining. In Proc. of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2002 (pp. 721–724). IEEE.
68.
Zha, X.F. & Howlett, R.J. (Eds.) (2006). Integrated Intelligent Systems for Engineering Design. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 149). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
69.
Zimmermann, A., Krötzsch, M., Euzenat, J. & Hitzler, P. (2006). Formalizing ontology alignment and its operations with category theory. In B.Bennett and C.Fellbaum (Eds.), Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2006), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 150, pp. 277–288).
