Keith A. Pray - Professional and Academic Site
About Me
·
·
·
LinkedIn Profile Facebook Profile GoodReads Profile
Professional
Academic
Teaching
                                          
Printer Friendly Version

Intro ] [ 32-Config GA ] [ 33-Functional First ] [ 34-Functional CBR ]

Up: AI in Design ]

Critique: A Model for Functional Reasoning in Design
Freeman, Newell *

      It didn't really hit me how old this paper was until examples were given that talked about drum memory. (This is the earliest publication of AI in Design we've read for this course.) This is a sign of how good a paper this really is. The concepts discussed are still interesting and not many are directly addressed by current research despite outdated examples. The authors do have the advantage of just speculating about functional reasoning rather than presenting a system that incorporates all the ideas mentioned.

      Three classes of structure is listed, physical objects, abstract objects and relations. I saw no good reason for differentiating between abstract objects and relations. A definition of function might have been useful. Given a definition it might be more obvious why a specific representation of relation would be useful.

      While discussing the basic model for the design task environment, proposition P2: "For each function it provides, a structure requires a set of functions." a hierarchical representation seems like an obvious choice. I did not find much talk of this though. The paper did address a different concern I had. The end of the "Structures provide functions" section states "In general there is no limit on the number of structures than can use a provided function." The "Capacity laws" section assures this was not intended to mean at any one time.

      the "Input-output relations" section's example seemed erroneous or at least confusing. The number of users logged on does not depend on the amount of memory available. Maybe the maximum number of users does. The amount of cutting (for a knife) does not depend on the sharpness of the blade. Maybe the quality of cutting, or the materials it can cut does.

      After the description of the model, using it for design is discussed. Asymmetry between the desired functions and the provided functions, there possibly being more provided since there is no requirement to use these. While not required to use all provided functionality, having a close balance might serve well as an efficiency goal.

      When discussing the system being built based on the presented model it is very unclear what is making the decisions and why in the system. Why is one structure is chosen over another? Why is effort being considered to automate the creation of an initial structure when the process only takes a few minutes for a human designer?


* P. Freeman & A. Newell, A Model for Functional Reasoning in Design. Proc. Int. Jnt. Conf. on AI, IJCAI-71, 1971, p. 621-640.

Intro
01-DPMED
02-Dominic
03-DSPL Air-Cyl
04-Pride
05-COSSACK
06-MICOM-M1
07-Configuration Survey
08-Dynamic CSP
09-MOLGEN
10-Failure Handling
11-VT
12-Conflict Resolution
13-Cooperative Negotiation
14-Negotiated Search
15-Multiagent Design
16-Prototypes
17-CBR Survey
18-PROMPT
19-A Design
20-Bogart
21-Cadet
22-Argo
23-Analogy Creativity Survey
24-Algorithm Design
25-AM
26-Edison
27-LEAP
28-Plan Compilation
29-ML Survey
30-Strain Gauge
31-Grammar
32-Config GA
33-Functional First
34-Functional CBR
35-Functional Survey
36-Models
37-First Principles
38-Config Spaces
39-Task Analysis

by: Keith A. Pray
Last Modified: August 13, 2004 8:04 PM
© 2004 - 1975 Keith A. Pray.
All rights reserved.

Current Theme: 

Kapowee Hosted | Kapow Generated in 0.009 second | XHTML | CSS