2004
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-25931-2_16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Architecture for Problem Solving with Diagrams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If the computer program can be analyzed as having a module that functionally serves as a model of 2-D space sufficient to answer relevant questions about spatial properties and relations of specific spatial instances, and the logic of the overall reasoning program uses this m odule exactly the same way it would use if the representation were external, then for certain functional purposes, it makes sense to treat is as a diagrammatic representation. We discuss this issue in some detail in Chandrasekaran et al (2004) in the context of the design and implementation of a diagrammatic problem solver.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If the computer program can be analyzed as having a module that functionally serves as a model of 2-D space sufficient to answer relevant questions about spatial properties and relations of specific spatial instances, and the logic of the overall reasoning program uses this m odule exactly the same way it would use if the representation were external, then for certain functional purposes, it makes sense to treat is as a diagrammatic representation. We discuss this issue in some detail in Chandrasekaran et al (2004) in the context of the design and implementation of a diagrammatic problem solver.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diagrams in practice have as essential non-homomorphic elements, e.g., hashing of sub-regions in Venn diagrams, and alpha-numeric characters as labels. Understanding diagrammatic representations requires viewing the process of diagrammatic reasoning as a multi-step, multi-modal, goal-oriented activity in which some of the steps involve extracting information homomorphically, while other steps either extract information by other means (Chandrasekaran et al 2004). The role of non-homomorphic elements in the overall representation is to support the other non-homomorphic steps, and as attention-drawing and focusing devices.…”
Section: Properties and Limitations Of Homomorphic Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently there have been proposals (Chandrasekaran, Kurup, Banerjee, Josephson, & Winkler, 2004;Lathrop & Laird, 2009) that have sought to augment this symbolic representation with visual/diagrammatic representations, and while there has been a long-standing debate (Pylyshyn, 2003) about the exact nature of the differences between these representations, there is significant evidence (Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006) for the role played by the perceptual system in high-level cognition. Moreover, (Chandrasekaran, 2002;Kurup, 2008) have argued that the support for such representations is at the architectural level.…”
Section: Multiple Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specialist's spatial representation is based on the diagrammatic representation system (DRS) first proposed by Chandrasekaran et al (2004). A diagram in DRS consists of three types of objects -points, curves and regions.…”
Section: Spatial Specialistmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation