 |
 |
Hi Terence, You are right, I am not talking about the pattern language. As I said, I'm just reflecting on the classifying of the patterns. And in my particular work I am definitely NOT trying to link to "the shape grammar research and the idea of an artificial intelligence engine that would generate building designs from premises." That's why I also characterize my undertaking as less complex than the DNA problem. Sorry if my bringing up Cowan's "pattern language" for a conservation economy gave the wrong impression. I'll get back to you after I finally knuckle down and read Alexander's work! 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: Tue 12/9/2008 6:44 PM To: 'A.B.Thorpe'; [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: another pattern language 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 --------------------------------- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).