Stakeholder Groups in Computational Creativity Research and Practice - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 19

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 1.3 a Key showing four types of timelines; b progression of a poetry system; c progression
of the HR system

administrative subprocesses performed by software and programmer. Finally, each
subprocess will comprise a sequence of generative or administrative acts .
We capture these timelines diagrammatically: the four different kinds of transi-
tions are highlighted with coloured arrows in Fig. 1.3 a. The blue arrow from box ʱ to

ʲ represents a change in epoch at system level. The red arrows overlapping a process

stack represent causal development periods. The green arrows represent data being
passed from one subprocess to another at run-time. The brown arrows represent a
series of generative/administrative acts which occur within a subprocess. Inside each
subprocess box is either a < >

creative act from the FACE model (i.e., a sequence

of generative acts), or an which doesn't introduce any new con-

cept, example, aesthetic or framing information/method. Administrative acts were
not originally described in the FACE model, but we needed them to describe certain
progressions during software development. For our purposes here, we use only T
to describe a translation administrative act often involving programming, and S to
describe when an aesthetic measure is used to select the best from a set of artefacts.
We employ the FACE model usage of lower-case letters to denote the output from the
corresponding upper-case generative acts. Furthermore, we extend the FACE notion
of (g)round and (p)rocess level generative acts with (m)eta level acts during which
process generation methods are invented. As in the original description of the FACE
model, we use a bar notation to indicate that a particular act was undertaken by the
programmer. We use a superscripted asterisk ( ∗ ) to point out repetition.

[ administrative act ]