|
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your message and your clarification of what you are doing. Thank
you also for the references.
Thinking about what you wrote I feel work in this area requires especial
ontological care.
Alexander is talking about a pattern _language_
You are talking about a categorization model of 'patterns'
The term 'language' is significant. A 'language' requires nouns (names of
'things')) and verbs (operators). Nouns are the essence of categories and
typologies. However, typologies, taxonomies and category schema are
essentially 'noun-based' (they name things as belonging to a particular
'type' and do not require the existence of 'verbs'.
It means that with a pattern _language_ Alexander et al were looking at
things in terms of an 'entity-relationship' model in which the relationships
were the verb, 'doing' words or operators. This is foundational if you want
to link this work to the shape grammar research and the idea of an
artificial intelligence engine that would generate building designs from
premises. Another significant dimension of Alexander and colleagues work
was that they proposed a) that the solution should evolve via 'rules' and b)
that the 'pattern language' was syntactically similar to a procedural
computer language and AI-base CAD system that could follow as a simple
technical development and c) that they had scope for human interference or
initiation of the rules chosen as the basis for evolving a solution. In a
hidden subterfuginous manner, they offered non-technical design theorists an
easy to understand introduction to AI-driven development of shape
grammar-based designs.
In contrast, what you are describing is a taxonomy, typology or categorical
schema NOT a language.
Essentially, however, the difference between them depends on the relative
level of abstraction at which you view a specific taxonomy. Any
entity-relationship model can be categorized in a purely typological fashion
(e.g. we can give a verb a name thus capturing a 'doing' as a category. Of
course, it completely loses its value as a language from that view point.
Similarly, we can take any noun category and associate it with the actions
necessary to achieve it. For example, the category of 'red' can be
transformed into the 'doing' of 'redden'. In this case, in this new
language-based viewpoint, we lose the benefits of the other category-based
viewpoint (and we cannot be in both at the same time).
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2008 10:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another pattern language
Hi Terry and list,
yes this is an interesting question and one that I am struggling with a bit
in my current research on design activism. I now have to make the shameful
admission that I have not read (any of) Alexander's work on pattern language
(although it's on my list -- certainly moving up). As a side note regarding
Damian's original DNA question, I wonder if the work of Stewart Brand, "How
Buildings Learn" would also be of interest, taking the evolutionary idea a
bit further--across time, or if the biomimcry guild (Janine Benyus et. al.)
has looked into it at all.
My own struggle seems somewhat simple in comparison to the discussion
regarding DNA, but it centers on the issue of creating a viable typology.
This question does not so much concern knowing that a pattern element does
what is claimed, but more "proving" that there are indeed certain "types" of
patterns. In this regard I've looked at a range of work on typology. As one
author writing about urban typologies (Marshall) notes, "In general there is
a balance to be struck between having too few broad categories or too many
narrow ones." The types must actually mean something to the field in which
they are situated.
Along these lines one might have practical/actual types (eg building types)
and theoretical types, as you imply Alexander et al.'s might be. Actual
typologies are generally inductive, built through an iterative process of
examining empirical cases, whereas a deductive approach relies on a theory
that defines all the theoretically possible variables and types in advance.
In most cases typologies do rest, at least initially, on empirical cases and
in this sense typologies are as much art as science.
In addition to theory driven typologies, I also learned that there are
typological theories, for example in explaining historical events. While a
historical theory describes a specific set of circumstances that help
explain why an event happened, a typological theory explains the various
pathways that an event might take based on set of available types. George
and Bennett explain, "Instead of focusing on the 'Russian revolution' per
se, a typological theory would explain this revolution as one example of the
type of revolutions that, for example, follow an international war; replace
weak state institutions; and take place amidst an economic crisis. Even if
there is only one revolution fitting this type, by identifying the
conjunctive effects of its underlying causal mechanisms, we can generalize
in a limited way to possible future revolutions that fit the same type. Such
generalized pathways are what is distinctive about typological theory."
It strikes me that pattern languages are in a sense both theory driven
typologies of patterns, but also typological theories, in the sense that
they suggest pathways that a building (or a conservation economy) might (or
perhaps should) take based on a set of available or acceptable types.
Typologies of course can't ever be proven absolutely, as Schneekloth
observes regarding the problem of the "odd" type. Typologies are both
"prison and promise because they will always be open and closed at the same
time." But then, the odd type can be a sign of innovation or evolution.
In the end typologies can perhaps be judged as to their meaningfulness or
usefulness given their purposes...does the typology help us order and
compare things in systematic study?
Here are a few references for what it's worth:
Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An introduction to
Classification Techniques. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102. London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Franck, K. A. and L. H. Schneekloth, Eds. (1994). Ordering Space: Types in
Architecture and Design. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
George, A. L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in
the Social
Sciences. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Lawrence, R. J. (1994). Type as Analytical Tool: Reinterpretation and
Application. Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck
and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Marshall, S. (2005). Urban Pattern Specification. London, Institute of
Community Studies.
Robinson, J. W. (1994). The Question of Type. Ordering Space: Types in
Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Best,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 12/5/2008 12:41 PM
To: 'A.B.Thorpe'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: another pattern language
Hi Ann,
Thanks for posting about the Ecotrust website.
An interesting question for me is to ask 'how does one 'prove' a pattern?
How does one prove, know or guarantee that a pattern does what it is claimed
it does? Hoiw does one know that a pattern isn't just something that someone
thought was a good idea because of some moral, fanciful or idealistically
conditioned beliefs about how the world works?
Alexander et al made some speculative suggestions demonstrating how the
start of a pattern language might go. For their introductory example, it was
ok that the demonstration didn't prove every feature. They demonstrated the
early basis of tool and indicated that it was only a starting point by their
use of a star system indicating whether there was substantial proof for
particualr theories underpinning some patterns or whether it was simply
speculation.
I read speculative claims such as 'Health is the most fundamental need of
all' unjustified and uncontextualised and wonder whether I can trust the
reliability of the patterns any more that a speculation of a pattern from an
alternative ecological view that 'war is the primary function of being
human'?
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2008 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: another pattern language
perhaps this is a bit off the DNA topic but along the lines of sustainable
development, Stewart Cowan (in association with Ecotrust) also developed a
pattern language for a "conservation economy," see
http://www.conservationeconomy.net/
They say,"On this site, fifty-seven patterns provide a framework for an
ecologically restorative, socially just, and reliably prosperous society.
They are adaptable to local ecosystems and cultures, yet universal in their
applicability. Together they form what we call a Conservation Economy."
Regards,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London Wates House, 22
Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net) &
blog: http://designactivism.net
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
|
