Paper Titles

Multibody Dynamic Analysis of Automobile Wiper Based on Virtual Prototype
p.1608

The Management of Play Buffer and Arithmetic of Nodes Selecting in P2P Streaming Media
p.1614

The Construction and Application of Capability Evaluation Models for Larger-the-Better Type Process on the Assembly and Packaging of Passive Components Industry
p.1618

Precoding Matrix Design of Orthogonal Space Time Coding and Performance Analysis
p.1624

A Survey on Computational Linguistics in Design Documents
p.1630

A Review on the Research of Sentiment Analysis in Computational Linguistics
p.1636

An Improved Kalman Filter in HINOC System
p.1642

On the Number of Balanced Even-Variable Boolean Functions with Maximum Algebraic Immunity
p.1647

Software Bus Architecture of Computer Numerical Control System
p.1651

HomeApplied Mechanics and MaterialsApplied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 58-60A Survey on Computational Linguistics in Design...

A Survey on Computational Linguistics in Design Documents

Article Preview

Abstract:

Design is one of the main activities in industrial manufacture. Researchers in the design field have an increasing number of opportunities to analyse design documents. Some researchers have sought to explore the natural language in these documents, or the design documents. This paper briefly reviews previous research in design document. By describing and analyzing the existing methods, it identifies the gap for the computational linguistics in design documents.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Information Technology for Manufacturing Systems II

Info:

Periodical:

Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 58-60)

Pages:

1630-1635

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.58-60.1630

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

June 2011

Authors:

Jian Xiong Wang, Yuan Yong Feng, Ke Qi

Keywords:

Computational Linguistics, Design Document, Sentiment Analysis

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2011 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] A. Dong, The Language of Design-Theory and Computation, Springer, London, (2009).

[2] J. McDonnell, Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2009), pp.35-50.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880802492862

[3] F. Glock, Aspects of language use in design conversation. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2009), pp.5-19.

[4] P. Drew, and J. Heritage, (Eds. ), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Cambridge University Press, (1993).

[5] S. Sarangi, and C. Roberts, (Eds. ), Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, Walter de Gruyter, (1999).

DOI: 10.1515/9783110208375

[6] B. de Vries, J. Jessurun, N. Segers, and H. Achten, Word graphs in architectural design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19 (2005), pp.277-288.

DOI: 10.1017/s0890060405050195

[7] A. Dong, M. Kleinsmann, and R. Valkenburg, Affect-in-Cognition through the Language of Appraisals. Design Studies 30 (2009), pp.138-153.

DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.003

[8] J. McDonnell, and P. Lloyd, (Eds. ), About: Designing-Analysing Design Meetings, Taylor and Francis, (2009).

[9] A. Oak, Performing architecture: Talking architect' and 'client, into being CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2009), pp.51-63.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880802518054

[10] R. Luck, Does this compromise your design?, Interactionally producing a design concept in talk CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2009), pp.21-34.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880802492896

[11] B. Matthews, Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order. CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2009), pp.65-76.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880802522403

[12] Research in Design Thinking, Delft Univ Press, (1992).

[13] J.S. Gero, and T.M. Neill, An approach to the analysis of design protocols Design Studies 19 (1998), pp.21-61.

[14] J. Stempfle, and P. Badke-Schaub, Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Design Studies 23 (2002), pp.473-496.

DOI: 10.1016/s0142-694x(02)00004-2

[15] J. Wasiak, B. Hicks, L. Newnes, and A. Dong, Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work. Research in Engineering Design, Vol 21, No 1, (2009), pp.43-64.

DOI: 10.1007/s00163-009-0075-4

[16] P. Badke-Schaub, K. Lauche, and A. Neumann, Team mental models in design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 3 (2007), pp.1-3.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880601170743

[17] P. Badke-Schaub, A. Neumann, K. Lauche, and S. Mohammed, Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 3 (2007), pp.5-20.

DOI: 10.1080/15710880601170768

[18] M. Kleinsmann, R. Valkenburg, and J. Buijs, Why do(n't) actors in collaborative design understand each other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of collaborative design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 5 (2007).

DOI: 10.1080/15710880601170875

[19] A. Dong, How am I doing? The language of appraisal in design. in: J.S. Gero, (Ed. ), Design Computing and Cognition '06 (DCC06), Kluwer, Dordrecht, (2006), pp.385-404.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5131-9_20

[20] R.F. Bales, A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction American Sociological Association: American Sociological Review 15 (1950) pp.257-263.

DOI: 10.2307/2086790

[21] R.F. Bales, and F.L. Strodtbeck, Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 46 (1951), pp.485-495.

DOI: 10.1037/h0059886

[22] S.R. Hiltz, K. Johnson, and A.M. Rabke, The process of communication in face to face vs. computerized conferences: a controlled experiment using Bales Interaction Process Analysis, the 18th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1980).

DOI: 10.3115/981436.981460

[23] F.J.M. Reid, V. Malinek, C.J.T. Stott, and J.S.B.T. Evans, The Messaging Threshold in Computer-Mediated Communication. Ergonomics 39 (1996) pp.1017-1037.

DOI: 10.1080/00140139608964525

[24] C.A. Gorse, and S. Emmitt, Investigating interpersonal communication during construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 10 (2003), pp.234-244.

DOI: 10.1108/09699980310489942

[25] C.A. Gorse, and S. Emmitt, Communication behaviour during management and design team meetings: a comparison of group interaction. Construction Management and Economics 25 (2007) pp.1197-1213.

DOI: 10.1080/01446190701567413

[26] P.D. Turney, Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews, ACL '02: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, (2001).

DOI: 10.3115/1073083.1073153

[27] NXP, UM10360 LPC17xx User Manual, (2009).

[28] M.A.M. Shaikh, H. Prendinger, and I. Mitsuru, Assessing Sentiment of Text by Semantic Dependency and Contextual Valence Analysis. in: A. Paiva, R. Prada, and R.W. Picard, (Eds. ), Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, (2007).

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74889-2_18

[29] E. Kelih, P. Grzybek, G. Antić, and E. Stadlober, Quantitative Text Typology The Impact of Sentence Length. in: M. Spiliopoulou, R. Kruse, A. Nürnberger, C. Borgelt, and W. Gaul, (Eds. ), From Data and Information Analysis to Knowledge Engineering Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2006).

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-31314-1_46

[30] R.M. French, and C. Labiouse, Why co-occurrence information alone is not sufficient to answer subcognitive questions. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence 13 (2002) pp.419-429.

DOI: 10.1080/09528130110104122

[31] C. Whitelaw, N. Garg, and S. Argamon, Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis, Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, ACM, New York, (2005), pp.625-631.

DOI: 10.1145/1099554.1099714