0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

2 visualizzazioni7 paginehgaaghhahaha

Nov 28, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

hgaaghhahaha

© All Rights Reserved

2 visualizzazioni

hgaaghhahaha

© All Rights Reserved

- Workflow Engine Guide
- Logic Manual - Oxford
- Smart Plant
- CxF_Standard.pdf
- Economy XML Connection v3.3
- Unit Plan
- semester 2 final exam study guide 2 answer key
- Web Service Patch
- Thesis-Religion as Representations Whole Doc
- BizTalk Server_ 8 Tips and Tricks for Better BizTalk Programming
- Topic 1 Funtions
- description: tags: 0405CODVol2Sec1FPIGFeb05
- 06MC101-DISCRETE STRUCTURES
- Light Weight, Heavy Effect Technologies
- Discrete Maths 2002 Lecture 22 3 Slides Pp
- SOAP Message
- Learning Spring 5.0 - Build, Test, And Secure Robust Enterprise-grade Applications Using the Spring Framework
- C144
- Divisibility
- Egiffinal03 Mauritius

Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

What is a design?

G Stiny

Graduate) School of Architecture) and Urban Planning, University of California, LOB Angeles,

CA 90024, USA

ftocoivod 4 Soptombor 1989

What is a design? In answer to this question, many talk about process, and others

point to products. Neither of these approaches, however, promises to characterize

designs. The first examines methods and behavior that may lead to designs without

having to say what designs are. And the second confuses designs and things

complying with them. But there is another approach that sees designs in terms of

how they are used, separating them from both process and products.

Designs are used to describe things for making and to show how they work. As

descriptions, designs are complicated and multifaceted. In the basic case, a design

consists of line drawings to determine form. Drawings may be used singly, or they

may be used multiply, for example, to establish three-dimensional relationships in plans,

sections, and elevations, or to describe the separate parts and their relationships in an

assembly. Drawings, however, rarely give everything in a design. Sometimes, drawings

are augmented with solid models and other kinds of geometrical representations;

more generally, they are combined with labels and samples to describe form further

and to provide details of function, material, construction, and so on. Drawings

themselves may be described in different ways by decomposing them into parts that

may be ordered hierarchically or in some other way, and by assigning these parts

to categories to clarify intention from different points of view and to allow for analysis,

explication, and evaluation. These ends are also served when drawings are identifed

with other descriptions, including diagrams, graphs, and networks, and numbers and

mathematical expressions. And the use and scope of the various descriptions in a

design may depend on special instructions and ancillary documents, or be elaborated

by additional commentary. Many devices of many kinds connect to make a design.

The complexity of designs suggests a simple definition.

Definition: A design is an element in an n-ary relation among drawings, other kinds of

descriptions, and correlative devices as needed.

This is more than mere bookkeeping; it provides a way of looking at designs in

terms of algebras and linked computations in these algebras that are carried out by

following rules. A relation containing designs is defined recursively in an algebra

that is the Cartesian product of other algebras. The properties of the algebra

depend on the properties of the algebras that combine to make it, and the

properties of the relation depend on computations in these algebras and on how

they influence one another as they are performed in parallel to produce designs.

Broad avenues of research open once designs are viewed in this way as elements

in relations. The separate algebras combined in Cartesian products to include these

relations contain the expressive devices used by specialists in different domains of

interest, say, descriptions of form, of function, or of construction, manufacture, and

assembly, and each has to be characterized in its own right before much progress

98

G Stiny

can be made. The ways in which these algebras combine, allowing for specialists

to communicate across domains to make their contributions to a common end, need to

be examined if designs are to involve multiple perspectives. Useful methods of

computation in different algebras and schemes to link them to produce the designs

in relations require investigation. And particular relations containing designs of

things in certain styles and of certain types must be defined and explored in practice,

and extended and changed to have continuing use as practice responds to new

interests and goals.

The rudiments of these approaches are illustrated nicely in the shape grammar

formalism, and in its generalizations. Shape grammars exploit two basic algebras

the algebra of shapes, U*, and the algebra of sets of labeled points, V*. These are

combined and elaborated in Cartesian products and with other set-theoretic

techniques to define relations containing designs.

Line drawings and arrangements of lines in space are shapes. Shapes have an

algebra, U*, that is equivalent in every important respect to drawing with pencil on

paper. In U*, shapes may be decomposed into parts in accordance with a subshape

relation in any way whatsoever, and they may be manipulated in sums and differences

to draw and erase lines, and with the Euclidean transformations to change lines

into others, so that angles between lines and proportional relationships among the

lengths of lines are invariant. The details of U* are characterized conveniently in

terms of a simple relation on lines.

Every line is given by endpoints that are always distinct, and has finite nonzero

length. Lines defined in this way are related according to whether one is embedded in

another. This relation holds for the lines / and /' if / is a segment of /'. In this

case, each of the endpoints of / is either an endpoint of /' or falls on /' between

its endpoints. The embedding relation is a partial order on lines: it is transitive,

and two lines are identical whenever they are embeded in one another. This gives

every line the same structure. All of the lines embedded in a line form an upper

semilattice. Every two of the lines embedded in the line have the shortest line

with both embedded in it as their least upper bound. But two of these lines have

a greatest lower bound only if there is a common line embedded in them.

With lines and the embedding relation ready for use, shapes follow immediately.

A shape is given by a finite but possibly empty set of lines. Not every set of lines

will do, however, if different sets of lines are meant to determine different shapes.

Take two squares side by side. This shape may be determined in many ways, say,

by seven lines: the shared side and the six other sides of the squares, or by five

lines: the two horizontals and the three verticals. The lines in a shape must be

chosen with care if a single shape is not to be taken for many. Maximal lines are

used for this purpose. Maximal lines are such that two can be embedded in exactly

the same lines only if there is a line embedded in the shortest of these that has no

line embedded in it that is embedded in either of the two lines. If maximal lines

are colinear, then they are separated by a gap; otherwise, they may touch or

intersect. For every shape, there is a unique set of maximal lines. This set contains

the smallest number of longest lines that combine to make the shape, and it is

given canonically to determine the shape.

As a set, a shape has limited possibilities for decomposition into elements and

subsets. But the maximal lines in the shape have other lines embedded in them

that may be maximal in combination. In this case, they determine the shapes that

are parts of the shape, and that may be used to decompose it. The subshape

relation fixes this idea formally: one shape is a subshape of another shape if every

maximal line in the first is embedded in some maximal line in the second. Two

squares side by side are determined by a set of five maximal lines. This shape has

Whtit in u dtKwyn/

99

a rectangle and two scjuares among its many subshapes. The rectangle is formed

by combining some of the maximal lines in the shape and is given by a subset of

these. Neither of the scjuares, however, is given by any such subset; both have

maximal lines that are not in the shape but that are embedded in maximal lines

that are. And other sub-shapes may be such that none has any maximal line that is

a maximal line in the shape.

Just as the embedding relation does for lines, the subshape relation provides

every shape with a definite structure given by all of its subshapes. These are

partially ordered by the subshape relation and form a Boolean algebra. Similar

shapes always have the same structure.

The subshapc relation allows for shapes to be decomposed in any way whatsoever.

Reciprocally, shapes are composed by combining them in sums and differences.

These two operations are readily defined in terms of the subshape relation, or in

terms of reduction rules that apply to sets of lines to produce sets of maximal

lines. The latter approach is constructive and is worth a closer look.

Iwery two shapes A and B have a unique sum, A + H% that corresponds to

drawing the shapes as one. The set of maximal lines for A + /?, however, need not

contain any of the maximal lines in A or in B. For example, two squares side by

side have two maximal lines apiece that are not maximal lines in their sum. But in

certain pairsone line from each squarethese lines do form maximal lines in the

sum of the squares. Reduction rules combine lines to produce maximal lines; they

are applied recursively, for as long as possible, beginning with the union of the set

of maximal lines for A and the set of maximal lines for B, to obtain the set of

maximal lines for A t- B. Reduction rules specify the details in this procedure: if

the lines / and /' are such that a common line can be embedded in both or both

share an enclpoint and can be embedded in a common line, then replace / and /'

with the shortest line that has both embedded in it.

Hie reduction rules for sum also allow for shapes to be defined in schemata.

This establishes families of shapes that share special features, and provides the

basis for parametric variation and optimization. A shape schema A(x) is a set of

variables x. Lines are assigned to these by a function g, and may be required to

satisfy given conditions. The set g(A(x)) defined in this way, however, may not be

a shape, as the lines in it may not be maximal. But once the reduction rules for

sum are applied to the set, the shape R(g(A{x))) is determined.

Where sum adds shapes together, difference subtracts one shape from another.

Every pair of shapes A and /?, in this order, has a unique difference, A- B, that

corresponds to erasing those subshapes of A that are also subshapes of B. If either

square is subtracted from two squares side by side, then another shape made up of

three sides of one square is produced. The set of maximal lines for A - B is

obtained from the set of maximal lines for A. Beginning with this set, reduction

rules are applied recursively, once again for as long as possible. The rules specify

the details in this procedure: if a line / is embedded in a maximal line /' in B,

then remove /; but if this is not so and / and /' have a common line embedded in

them, then replace / with the one or two lines, where each has an endpoint of /

and is the longest such line embedded in / that has no line embedded in it that is

embedded in /'.

The algebra of shapes, /*, with the operations of sum and difference satisfies

the axioms for a Boolean ring, and has the required zero but is without the benefit

of a unit. When the transformations are used in U* to change shapes into similar

shapes, maximal line by maximal line, they distribute over both sum and difference.

In this case, with the trivial exception of the set containing the zero only, U* has

no proper subset with exactly the same properties.

100

G Stiny

produced by following rules that change shapes into shapes. These changes are

carried out recursively by drawing and erasing lines. A rule A - B defines a

sequence of these operations with the transformations and with sum and difference

to replace an occurrence of one shape A with the corresponding occurrence of another

shape B. The rule applies to a shape C whenever this formula is satisfied:

there is a transformation t that makes A a subshape of C.

(1)

(C-t(A))

+ t(B).

(2)

To replace shapes in this way exploits the full resources of U* and thereby provides

the basis for every computation with shapes. These computations are of all sorts.

In fact, every set defined in a Turing machine can be given equivalently by

following rules in U*.

Like shapes, rules may be defined in schemata. This is an important generalization

that in effect allows for shapes to vary within rules and extends the transformations

under which rules apply. A rule schema A(x) -+ B(x) joins shape schemata A(x)

and B(x) that may or may not share variables. If g is a function that assigns lines

to the variables in both of these schemata, so that given conditions are satisfied,

and the reduction rules for sum are used to ensure that lines are maximal, then the

rule R(g{A(x))) - R(g(B(x))) is defined.

Some small effort was required to characterize the algebra of shapes, U*, and to

provide the means to define computations in it. This effort, however, is amply

repaid. Drawing with lines is now as rigorous as doing arithmetic, and is no more

mysterious. And drawings themselves may be viewed as active agents in computation,

as well as descriptions in the usual way. But drawings alone rarely make a design;

they are typically combined with symbols that work in conjunction with them.

These important interactions require a new algebra that can be formed in the

Cartesian product of U* and the algebra of sets of labeled points, V*.

A labeled point is defined when a label from a specified set, say, the alphabet

a, b, c,..., is associated with a point. Labels may be used simply to identify and

classify particular points, or they may have a semantics allowing them to carry

important information about shapes and other things. A labeled point may be

transformed to produce a new one in which the same label is associated with

another point. Finite but possibly empty sets of labeled points are partially ordered

by the subset relation, and are combined by union and relative complement to

form the algebra V*. Like U\ V* is a Boolean ring with a zero but no unit.

And if the transformations are used in V*, then they distribute over both of its

operations.

It is convenient to define sets of labeled points in schemata. Each schema P{y)

is a set of variables y. Labeled points are assigned to these by a function g, and

may be required to satisfy given conditions. Schemata P(y) and Q(y) possibly with

common variables are joined in a schema P(y) -*- Q(y) to define rules to carry out

computations in V*. Each rule determines a sequence of operations allowing for

replacement, and applies recursively as specified in formulas (1) and (2), where A,

B, and C now stand for sets of labeled points, and subshape, sum, and difference

are subset, union, and relative complement. And notice that rules in V*, too, are

enough to carry out any computation defined in a Turing machine.

Lines and labeled points are combined to make labeled shapes. A labeled shape

(A, P) has two componentsa shape A and a set of labeled points Pand is an

element in the algebra U*V* formed in the Cartesian product of the algebras U*

What is o design?

101

and V\ The relation and operations on U*V* combine subshapc with .subset, sum

with union, and difference with relative complement. If these combinations are

named by the shape relation or operation involved, then the labeled shape </i, P) is

a subshapc of the labeled shape (/i, Q) whenever the shape A is a subshape of the

shape /i, and the set of labeled points P is a subset of the set of labeled points Q.

And, for example, the sum of these labeled shapes has as components the sum of

A and #, and the union of P and Q. A transformation t of the labeled shape

(A.P) is the labeled shape (t(/l), t(/>)). The algebra LTV shares the properties of

the algebras U* and I/#; it is a Boolean ring, and the transformations distribute

over its operations.

Computations in U*V* are defined in shape grammars. Shape grammars have

been uncd in architecture for many years to define relations containing designs.

These relations are called languages. Shape grammars have been used to define

languages for Palladio, Wren, Wright, and Terragni, and for vernacular styles from

different periods and places. Shape grammars provide designs for churches, villas,

houses, rnultistoried structures, and buildings of other types, for ornament to

decorate them, for furniture to fill them, and for gardens in which to put them.

And new shape grammars are always forthcoming; they have been worked out

from scratch to explore fresh ideas, and by combining or transforming shape

grammars already in use to profit from past experience with established architectural

styles and known building types.

A computation in a shape grammar is a scries of labeled shapes produced by

following rules that change labeled shapes into labeled shapes. Each rule combines

a rule in U* and a rule in V that apply together in U*V\ the one to the shape

and the other to the set of labeled points in a labeled shape. In this way, the

computation in the shape grammar combines two computations-one with shapes

and one with sets of labeled pointsthat are carried out in parallel and influence

one another mutually. These interactions vary according to how rules in U* and

rules in V are linked in rules in U*V*. Rules in U*V* establish dependencies

among shapes and sets of labeled points that are propagated within labeled shapes

and from labeled shape to labeled shape as the rules are defined in schemata and

then applied. The mechanism that makes this possible is already familiar.

In a shape grammar, a rule schema (A(x),P(y)) -* (B(x), Q(y)) combines

schemata for shapes A(x) and B(x), and schemata for sets of labeled points P(y)

and Q(y). Variables may be shared among these schemata, and conditions on

values assigned to variables may relate lines and labeled points. A rule is defined

whenever a function g is used to assign appropriate values to all of the variables in

the schema (A(x), P(y)) -* (B(x), Q(y)), and the reduction rules for sum are used to

obtain shapes from the sets g(A(x)) and g(B(x)). The rule is applied as specified in

formulas (1) and (2), this time interpreted for labeled shapes.

The idea of combining algebras in Cartesian products, so that computations can

be carried out in parallel, has applications that go beyond shape grammars as they

are typically used to define languages of designs. For example, U* and V* can be

combined in repeated products to define relations containing designs that have as

components plans, sections, and elevations, or descriptions for the separate parts of

an assembly. Consider a relation for building plans and elevations in a certain

style. The relation can be defined in the product U*V*U*V*, where plans are

labeled shapes produced in the first instance of U*V*, and elevations are labeled

shapes produced in the second. In this case, rules in two shape grammars are

combined, allowing for two computations with labeled shapes to be performed in

parallel. Or the relation can be defined in an analogous fashion in the product

U*U*V* whenever the labels used in plans and the labels used in elevations are

102

taken from disjoint sets to obtain V*. It is easy to imagine how schemata might be

used in both of these new algebras to combine rules for plans and rules for elevations.

Suppose an opening is to be made in a wall of a plan. If the wall is an exterior

one, then a corresponding opening is required in the elevation; otherwise, the

elevation is unchanged. In the first case, a rule for plans must be combined with a

rule for elevations. If the location and width of the opening in the plan and the

location and width of the opening in the elevation are to correspond, then, in the

schema in which rules for plans and elevations are combined, some of the variables

given to define rules for plans and some of the variables given to define rules for

elevations must be shared, or conditions must be given to establish dependencies

among them. The height of the opening, however, need not be related to its width

and may vary freely, allowing for some of the variables to be independent of others.

In the second case, a rule for plans and an identity defined with the zero in U*V*

or in U* are combined. The plan can so be changed without changing the elevation.

Not everything in a design, however, is always a shape from U* or a set of

labeled points from V*. Other devices are sometimes required, and are readily

available in other algebras. For example, a labeled shape in a design may be

described in the design to clarify intention or to provide analysis, explication, and

evaluation. Typically, this involves some kind of decomposition. Decompositions

are defined in a variety of ways. In the basic case, each describes a labeled shape

in terms of a list (alphabet or vocabulary) of labeled shapes, and is given by a

finite, nonempty set of transformations of labeled shapes in the list that sum to

make the labeled shape. This decomposition and others belong to an algebra that

is a Boolean ring like V*9 only this time defined on sets of labeled shapes instead of on

sets of labeled points. Every set in the algebra except the zero is a decomposition of

some labeled shape, and every labeled shape in U*V* has at least one decomposition

and possibly infinitely many of them in the algebra. Computations with decompositions

are defined in set grammars in which spatial relations are used in rules to express

compositional ideas. The rules in a set grammar join pairs of nonempty sets of

labeled shapes that may be defined in schemata; they are applied as specified in

formulas (1) and (2). And when the algebra for sets of labeled shapes is combined

in Cartesian products with U* and V*, shape grammars and set grammars can be

used together to define relations among labeled shapes and their decompositions.

There are more ways to extend designs. The labeled shapes in decompositions

may be ordered hierarchically or in some other way, and assigned to special

categories. In addition to labeled shapes and their decompositions, designs may

contain other geometrical representations based on planes or solids. And designs

may contain graphs and strings of symbols. Opportunities for algebras in which

relations containing designs can be defined in computations are vast, and can

always be multiplied in yet another Cartesian product.

Relations provide a productive characterization of designs and a generous

framework in which to think about designs in various ways. For example, designs

are sometimes compared for equivalences and similarities, and ranked with respect

to different criteria, including aesthetic and functional ones. As a result, new

relations are formed. These can be defined in computations just as relations

containing designs are defined. Where drawings, descriptions, and devices of other

kinds are connected to make designs, designs are connected to make comparisons

and to establish rankings. In both cases, parallel computations go forward in

algebras to produce the elements in relations.

The use of algebras and computations to define relations containing designs

shows the kind of virtuosity that is to be encouraged in intelligent practice, and it

can show something about practice as well. Attempts to define and use relations

What in n donifln?

103

containing designs suggest that familiar slogans like "form follows function" that are

intended to guide practice are without foundation, that simple appeals to programme,

context, technology, or material as the exclusive generator of form are without

force, and that formal, functional, rational, and historical accounts of how designs

are produced are partial and incomplete. Attempts to define and use relations

containing designs in which many components are linked and work together to

respond to concerns in different domains suggest that actual practice is more

complex. Designs follow from a confluence of considerations, some dealing with

form, and others dealing with aesthetics, function, material, construction, and so

on. The impetus for practice comes from multiple perspectives that may each be

dominant at different times. These perspectives make their separate contributions

but are connected, allowing for diverse interests and goals to interact and to

influence one another mutually. Designs are complicated and multifacetcd; they

are the very stuff of relations, algebras, and computations.

Many of the ideas presented in this paper were originally considered in Stiny

(1975). A detailed up-to-date account will appear in Stiny (in preparation). For

now, an introductory review of work on shape grammars is given in Stiny (1985),

a brief account of spatial relations and set grammars in Stiny (1982), and a helpful

worked example using description functions to determine a relation containing

designs in Stiny (1981). An algebra for spatial regions that may contain colors or

other qualities, and its use in a Cartesian product with U*V to define relations

containing designs, are considered in Knight (1989), and a good review of geometrical

representations based on solids, and their algebra, is presented in Requicha (1980).

Some current approaches in architecture and mechanical design that are amenable

to relations, algebras, and computations are discussed in Stiny (1989).

References

Knight T W, 1989, "Color grammars: designing with lines and colors" Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design 16 417-449

Requicha A A G, 1980, "Representations for rigid solids: theories, methods and systems"

Computing Surveys 12 4 3 7 - 4 6 4

Stiny G, 1975 Pictorial and Formal Aspects of Shape and Shape Grammars (Birkhauser, Basel)

Stiny G, 1981, "A note on the description of designs" Environment and Planning B: Planning

and Design 8 2 5 7 - 2 6 7

Stiny G, 1982, "Spatial relations and grammars" Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 9 113-114

Stiny G, 1985, "Computing with form and meaning in architecture" Journal of Architectural

Education 39(1) 7 - 1 9

Stiny G, 1989, "Formal devices for design", in Design Theory '88 Eds S L Newsome,

W R Spillers, S Finger (Springer, New York) pp 173 - 1 8 8

Stiny G, in preparation Shape: A Primer in Algebra, Grammar, and Description

- Workflow Engine GuideCaricato daNoel Koutlis
- Logic Manual - OxfordCaricato daRafael Lima
- Smart PlantCaricato dar
- CxF_Standard.pdfCaricato daEso Pappas
- Economy XML Connection v3.3Caricato daZozoaa Zozo
- Unit PlanCaricato daMackenzie Holsten
- semester 2 final exam study guide 2 answer keyCaricato daapi-344176657
- Web Service PatchCaricato dapixar_basim
- Thesis-Religion as Representations Whole DocCaricato dasleeptodreams
- BizTalk Server_ 8 Tips and Tricks for Better BizTalk ProgrammingCaricato daGuillermo Molina
- Topic 1 FuntionsCaricato da丽娜钱霙
- description: tags: 0405CODVol2Sec1FPIGFeb05Caricato daanon-165283
- 06MC101-DISCRETE STRUCTURESCaricato dasivabharathamurthy
- Light Weight, Heavy Effect TechnologiesCaricato dacontacttoba9948
- Discrete Maths 2002 Lecture 22 3 Slides PpCaricato daapi-26021617
- SOAP MessageCaricato damskr_scribd
- Learning Spring 5.0 - Build, Test, And Secure Robust Enterprise-grade Applications Using the Spring FrameworkCaricato daSumit Basu
- C144Caricato daVinayak Doifode
- DivisibilityCaricato dachicken nuggets
- Egiffinal03 MauritiusCaricato daDibakar Ray
- From a Gloss to a Learning Tool: Does Visual Aids Enhance Better Sentence Comprehension?Caricato daGiovanna Adlim
- Digital Electronivs Course Description_2017Caricato daDevAnandPotterHead
- 11Caricato daSai Charan
- KenTong_Developing Web ServicesCaricato daHari Prakash
- 2000 North Carolina State Mathematics ContestCaricato daAndrew Lontoc
- QH30Caricato daRitesh Sharma
- Lect # 05, Floyd, Ch # 05_Combinational Logic Analysis _ Implementation.pdfCaricato daMuhammad Adnan Khalid
- Week 6 - Partial DerivativesCaricato daSherry Abe
- HCF40181Caricato daMartín Plaza Calderón
- PLANNERCaricato daKevkev Clemente

- kkCaricato daIsabel Fernandes
- 2010-Building a Pattern LanguageCaricato daIsabel Fernandes
- gsCaricato daIsabel Fernandes
- xggdCaricato daIsabel Fernandes
- hhfshsfCaricato daIsabel Fernandes
- Walls Construction [Modo de Compatibilidade]Caricato daIsabel Fernandes
- 1Caricato daIsabel Fernandes
- guia_portuguesCaricato daManu Silva
- Lowrise ModelCaricato daIsabel Fernandes

- tech integration matrix 1Caricato daapi-316878019
- Swedish as a Second LanguageCaricato daIrina Munteanu
- ImplicatureCaricato daredrose_W249394
- From the Facticity of Dasein to the Facticity of Nature: Naturalism, Animality, and MetontologyCaricato daβινιτ οζα
- 3.2. Best & Tyler. 2007Caricato daBianca Czarnobai De Jorge
- Talk Like TED CourseCaricato daErickAmelia
- positive behavior support planCaricato daapi-316958999
- task1Caricato daapi-340033521
- INITIAL TEST FOR 2nd GRADECaricato daMiguel Campos A.
- Psych 645 Draft for Team b Week 5 Theory Tables Brenda's Parts Only. (3) (1)Caricato daBrenda Lee Lee
- Curriculum für das Training von medizinische PatientenübergabenCaricato daHDrachsler
- Lexi c OgraphyCaricato daLui Medina-Cantillo
- lesson 8 self-assessmentCaricato daapi-241168263
- Van Goubergen 2009 - Integrated Change Framework for Setup Reduction - IERCCaricato dadvgoube
- Branches of PhilosophyCaricato daJui Aquino Provido
- CLAUSES.docxCaricato daMahnaz Arif
- Complete FinalCaricato daNorilleJaneDequina
- Management MCQS With ACaricato daAfreen Reign
- regulamentMaster-2011finalCaricato daeva_85
- Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters the Interpreter Education Series Vol 2Caricato daHana Bouziane
- Research Proposal Guidance Notes ROCaricato daAmira Ghonim
- swales-11Caricato daapi-269969510
- Anatomy of the Creative CityCaricato damarcbonnemains
- e Learning GuidebookCaricato dashift00
- kovacs kate- final paperCaricato daapi-318391076
- english grammarCaricato daapi-245787043
- Humanising LeadershipCaricato dam_ihab777629
- Past Perfect Simple and ContinuousCaricato daBeatle Jose
- addressing the achievement gap of english language learnersCaricato daapi-240093885
- Fixed Duration SchedulesCaricato daChristine Pedery

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.