This process is only delayed by the scarcity of material resources, and by the slowness with which a sufficient number of teachers are adopting these methods.

ECAADE has set out to analyze the state of this issue during its next conference, and it will be discussed from various points of view. From this confrontation of ideas will come, surely, the guidelines for progress in the years to come.

The different sessions will be grouped together following these four themes:

(A.) Multimedia and Course Work / State of the art of the synthesis of graphical and textual information favored by new available multimedia computer programs. Their repercussions on academic programs. (B.) The New Design Studio / Physical characteristics, data concentration and accessibility of a computerized studio can be better approached in a computerized workshop. (C.) How to manage the new education system / Problems and possibilities raised, from the practical and organizational points of view, of architectural education by the introduction of computers in the classrooms. (D.) CAAI. Formal versus informal structure / How will the traditional teaching structure be affected by the incidence of these new systems in which the access to knowledge and information can be obtained in a random way and guided by personal and subjective criteria.

The term "model" in the above paragraph has been used in various ways and in this context is defined as any representation through which design intent is expressed. This includes accurate/ rational or abstract drawings (2- dimensional and 3-dimensional), physical models (realistic and abstract) and computer models (solid, void and virtual reality). The various models that fall within the categories above have been derived from the need to "view" the proposed design in various ways in order to support intuitive reasoning about the proposal and for evaluation purposes. For example, a 2-dimensional drawing of a floor plan is well suited to support reasoning about spatial relationships and circulation patterns while scaled 3-dimensional models facilitate reasoning about overall form, volume, light, massing etc. However, the common denominator of all architectural design projects (if the intent is to construct them in actual scale, physical form) are the discrete building elements from which the design will be constructed. It is proposed that a single computational model representing individual components supports all of the above "models" and facilitates "viewing"' the design according to the frame of reference of the viewer.

Furthermore, it is the position of the authors that all reasoning stems from this rudimentary level of modeling individual components.

The concept of component representation has been derived from the fact that a "real" building (made from individual components such as nuts, bolts and bar joists) can be "viewed" differently according to the frame of reference of the viewer. Each individual has the ability to infer and abstract from the assemblies of components a variety of different "models" ranging from a visceral, experiential understanding to a very technical, physical understanding. The component concept has already proven to be a valuable tool for reasoning about assemblies, interferences between components, tracing of load path and numerous other component related applications. In order to validate the component-based modeling concept this effort will focus on the development of spatial understanding from the component-based model. The discussions will, therefore, center about the representation of individual components and the development of spatial models and spatial reasoning from the component model. In order to frame the argument that spatial modeling and reasoning can be derived from the component representation, a review of the component-based modeling concept will precede the discussions of spatial issues.