An Efficient Design Support System based on Automatic Rule Checking and Case-based Reasoning

A semantic-based framework for automated rule checking in healthcare construction projects

“…Although it is usually clear which information from requirements should be represented in rules when using a computerexecutable language, existing initiatives for encoding building regulations into computer-executable formats still require manual efforts (Zhang and El-Gohary 2015;Kim et al 2019;Lee et al 2019;Schwabe et al 2019). Thus, the process of translating humanreadable and natural language into a computable format requires a "logical reliable rule-making process" (Lee et al 2016, p. 53), which must be based on the core information (i.e., the fundamental parts of a phrase) that defines the meaning of the sentence.…”

“…During design reviews, design specifications must be checked against existing regulations to achieve conformance to legal requirements. Hence, detailed checking of building design in relation to regulations and applicable standards is a key part of the design process (Nawari 2013;Kim et al 2019;Lee et al 2019;Ghannad et al 2019;Schwabe et al 2019).…”

Exploring Mistakeproofing in Healthcare Design

“…These are (i) compliance checking seen as a separate process from the overall design, performed at determined times (usually done by importing the building model into a rule-checking engine); and (ii) design solution checking, usually performed in a continuous way, as a support and parallel operation during the design process. Lee et al (2019) concluded that the second understanding supports design optimisation by correcting errors and exploring different design alternatives. The main limitation of this study (Lee et al 2019) was incorporating information from subjective requirements, which still remains a challenge according to the authors perspective.…”

“…Lee et al (2019) concluded that the second understanding supports design optimisation by correcting errors and exploring different design alternatives. The main limitation of this study (Lee et al 2019) was incorporating information from subjective requirements, which still remains a challenge according to the authors perspective.…”

“…In fact, the problematic rhetoric around using automation in design assessment and requirements subjectivity is recognised by the literature as a major shortfall (Nawari 2012;Dimyadi and Amor 2013;Lee et al 2019). This is because human involvement is fundamental in dealing with the abstract and subjective elements, which are implicitly embedded within regulatory documents (Nawari 2012;Solihin and Eastman 2016).…”