The structure of information
Drawings are by definition concerned with the perceived
form of the building and if we are to sub-divide them
then a breakdown into the different elements of their
form is more logical than an attempt to classify them by
either material or trade sub-divisions. (A criticism that
may be levelled at the Uniclass Table G—Elements for
buildings—is that it is too much oriented towards
materials and procedures; a defect that is largely
avoided in the simpler provisions of CI/SfB Table I).
Both systems of classification co-exist in the profession
at the present time and are dealt with later in this
chapter.
In the meantime let us return to the cluttered example
shown in (1.13) and separate it into three elements
chosen at random, collecting information about the walls
on one drawing, floor finishes on another and the doors
on a third (1.14, 1.15 and 1.16).
At once we can see what we are doing. The notes and
references to other drawings are relatively few and
sparsely distributed, so that they catch the eye, and
plenty of space is left for further annotation should this
become desirable during the course of the project.
Furthermore, to anyone who knows how this particular
set of drawings is sub-divided the search pattern for
any aspect of the building is straightforward. If
someone wants to know about windows they can go
straight to the general arrangement drawing dealing
with windows, from which point the search pattern
described previously can proceed within the narrow
confines of window information. The general search
pattern, shown diagrammatically in (1.17) now follows a
series of paths, each related to a specific aspect of the
building (1.18).
The advantages of this are two-fold. In the first place the
designer now has a framework upon which to display his
information; in the second place the user has an
authoritative guide through the informational labyrinth.
It should be noted that the drawings illustrating this have
been prepared using CAD. In most offices the decision
on whether small drawings such as these are drawn by
hand or by computer will hinge, as here, on the
complexity, longevity and distribution of the information
to be conveyed, and the number of CAD seats available
in the office. In practice, the illustrations shown here,
while small in themselves, show part of a much larger
complex and the question of drawing them manually
never really arose.Structuring by building element
Within the framework of a primary structuring by
information type, the information to be shown is sub-
divided by building element and this constitutes the
secondary structuring of the drawing set.To establish the possible means of achieving this we
should start by looking at the various ways in which the
building fabric may be regarded. Consider the diagram
in (1.19).It is difficult to visualise any space-enclosing structure,
no matter how primitive, which does not possess
elements falling within one or other of the four
categories shown. A little thought, however, will suggest
that this is an oversimplification, and that a minimal sub-
division of elements would look much more like (1.20).
The elements here have one common feature—they are
all structural. We may introduce other elements but it is
apparent that then we are setting up another hierarchy
of information analogous to the hierarchy established
when considering types of information (1.21).Coding the set
It is one thing to recognise the existence of this
hierarchy and another thing altogether to set it down in
simple and universally acceptable terms. The trouble
with hierarchic systems—in building communications as