Making grammars: From computing with shapes to computing with things

Recent interest in making and materiality spans from the humanities and social sciences to engineering, science, and design. Here, we consider making through the lens of a unique computational theory of design: shape grammars. We propose a computational theory of making based on the improvisational, perception and action approach of shape grammars and the shape algebras that support them. We modify algebras for the materials (basic elements) of shapes to define algebras for the materials of objects, or things. Then we adapt shape grammars for computing shapes to making grammars for computing things. We give examples of making grammars and their algebras. We conclude by reframing designing and making in light of our computational theory of making

Principles for the definition of design structures

Different kinds of design structure are created and used in engineering design and development processes. Function structures, design grammars and bills of materials are common examples. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding distinctions and similarities between different kinds of structure and systematic ways to articulate them. This paper brings together research on product structuring and shape computation to inform the specification of principles for the definition of design structures. The principles draw together findings reported in the computational geometry and product definition literature with research from a range of companies and industry sectors that encompasses enterprise and process structures. The potential value of the principles to computer integrated manufacturing and through-life support is demonstrated through application to four case studies

The Critic as Artist: Oscar Wilde’s Prolegomena to Shape Grammars

Shape grammars include Wilde’s aesthetic (critical) method—I can calculate with shapes as in themselves they really are not. Embedding makes this possible with schemas and rules that are “superb in [their] changes and contradictions”