Design Computing and Cognition’20 2022
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-90625-2_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Five Criteria for Shape Grammar Interpreters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…41 And yet, much more work is needed to see whether indeed the shape grammar implementations can find their way into the toolkit of most practicing architects. 42,43…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…41 And yet, much more work is needed to see whether indeed the shape grammar implementations can find their way into the toolkit of most practicing architects. 42,43…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The implementation of shape embedding through database query, despite its success in well-structured cases and design workflows, fails to provide a general solution to the subshape problem (McKay et al , 2012). The implementation of shape embedding through the derivation of the transformation matrices is still the most promising method, but it is plagued by a series of problems across several fronts (Stouffs, 2019; Hong and Economou, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%