>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:44:38 +0100, "Peter Hornsby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  >wrote:

  >
  >Capturing why a change has been made to a given code fragment (or design,
  >or interface) can be very useful.  Gerhard Fischer did some work on this
  >with a system which captured the contextual rationale for network design
  >within an organisation, identifying particular 'special cases' and how
  >these were addressed.  My approach to the problem you describe would
  >capture the 'old' code and the 'new' code together with the relevant design
  >information about what both code fragments are intended to do - hence we
  >have 2 alternate solutions.  Rather than require the developer to do
  >additional work to get the potential for reuse, I believe that having a
  >tool operating in the background which captures design information and
  >makes suggestions to the developer is more useful (and more likely to be
  >used when we throw it over the wall!).

Pete,

Following the discussion on design context, I can add some info derived from 
my own Ph.D. which provides an alternative point of view.

My interest (as you know) lies on design rationale as a source of
information that facilitates communication of designs. Although my thesis
mostly makes theoretical points on design re-use, as a more practical
example I can point to Roger Goodwin's thesis entitled "An integrated
framework for representing design history", Loughborough University,
1997 as a source of hints for elements that can provide a good source of
design contextual information. Roger has a build a system that claims to
guide design evolution through manipulation of argumentative structures,
like alternatives, assessments, etc.

That's the first attempt -to my knowledge- to tailor design rationale
languages to specific design tasks and indeed applications - I personally
found it very inspiring. Although the title "design history" may
remind a post-hoc approach to design, it certainly provides methodological
elements, i.e. ways to decompose complex problems, and it blends the 
"system" and "rhetorical" perspectives in a single (and realistic) process.

Giorgos

Reply via email to