Skip to main content

Computational diagrammatics: diagrams and structure

  • Chapter

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise J, Etchemendy J (1994). Hyperproof. CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barwise J, Etchemendy J (1995). Heterogeneous logic. In Glasgow J, Narayan NH, Chandrasekaran B, editors, Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pages 211–234. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bertin J (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks and maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cleveland WS (1985). The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth, Pacific Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glasgow J, Narayan NH, Chandrasekaran B (1995). Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Good J (1999). VPLs and novice program comprehension: How do different languages compare? In 15th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL’99), pages 262–269. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Green TRG (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. In Sutcliffe A, Macaulay, editors, People and Computers V, pages 443–460. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Green TRG, Petre M (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Visual Languages and Computing, 7:131–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gurr C, Lee J, Stenning K (1998). Theories of diagrammatic reasoning: distinguishing component problems. Mind and Machines, 8(4):533–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gurr CA (1998). On the isomorphism, or lack of it, of representations. In Marriot K, Meyer B, editors, Visual Language Theory, chapter 10, pages 293–305. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gurr CA (1999). Effective diagrammatic communication: Syntactic, semantic and pragmatic issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 10(4):317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hammer E, Danner N (1996). Towards a model theory of Venn diagrams. In Barwise J, Allwein G, editors, Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pages 109–127. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horn RE (1998). Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century. MacroVU Press, Bainbridge Island, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kosslyn SM (1994). Elements of graph design. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11:65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marks J, Reiter E (1990). Avoiding unwanted conversational implicature in text and graphics. In Proceedings of AAAI-90, pages 450–456.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Miller G (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63:81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N H Narayan and R Hübscher (1998). Visual language theory: Towards a human-computer interaction perspective. In Marriot K, Meyer B, editors, Visual Language Theory, chapter 3. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oberlander J (1996). Grice for graphics: pragmatic implicature in network diagrams. Information design journal, 8(2):163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oberlander J, Monaghan P, Cox R, Stenning K, Tobin R (1999). Unnatural language processing: An empirical study of multimodal proof styles. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 8:363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. OMG ad/99-06-08 (Part 3) (1999). UML Notation Guide version 1.3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Petre M (1995). Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(6):33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Petre M, Green TRG (1992). Requirements of graphical notations for professional users: electronics CAD systems as a case study. Le Travail Humain, 55:47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Saint-Martin F (1987). Semiotics of visual language. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shimojima A (1996). Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In Barwise J, Allwein G, editors, Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pages 27–48. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shimojima A (1999). Derivative meaning in graphical representations. In 15th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL’99), pages 212–219. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shin SJ (1996). Situation-theoretic account of valid reasoning with Venn diagrams. In Barwise J, Allwein G, editors, Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pages 81–108. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stenning K, Inder R (1995). Applying semantic concepts to analysing media and modalities. In Glasgow J, Narayan NH, Chandrasekaran B, editors, Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pages 303–338. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19:97–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Stenning K, Yule P (1997). Image and language in human reasoning: a syllogistic illustration. Cognitive Psychology, 34(2):109–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tufte ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire CT.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tufte ER (1990). Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  33. von Klopp Lemon A, von Klopp Lemon O (2000). Constraint matching for diagram design: Qualitative visual languages. In Diagrams 2000: Theory and Application of Diagrams, LNAI 1889, pages 74–88, Berlin. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang J, Norman D (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18:87–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gurr, C. (2006). Computational diagrammatics: diagrams and structure. In: Besnard, D., Gacek, C., Jones, C.B. (eds) Structure for Dependability: Computer-Based Systems from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-111-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-111-3_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-110-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-111-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics