Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:28:30.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Merged ontology for engineering design: Contrasting empirical and theoretical approaches to develop engineering ontologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2009

Saeema Ahmed  and
Mario Štorga
Saeema Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
Mario Štorga
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison of two previous and separate efforts to develop an ontology in the engineering design domain, together with an ontology proposal from which ontologies for a specific application may be derived. The research contrasts an empirical, user-centered approach to developing the ontology engineering design integrated taxonomies (EDIT) with a theoretical approach in which concepts and relations are elicited from engineering design theories design ontology (DO). The limitations and advantages of each approach are discussed. The research methodology adopted is to map the ontology through examining each of the concepts and relations contained within each of the ontologies DO and EDIT with respect to the other. The comparison process results in an examination of both ontologies, with a few changes resulting from this. The importance of the two different approaches, one that is theoretically sound and another that is applicable, is recognized and argued. Finally, the merged ontology for engineering design is proposed as a template ontology that can be tailored by researchers and practitioners for a specific context.

Keywords

Design TheoryEmpirical ResearchEngineering Design OntologyIndexing KnowledgeOntology Mapping and Merging
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 23 , Issue 4: Problem Solving Methods: Past, Present, and Future , November 2009 , pp. 391 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. (2005). Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge. Design Studies 26 ( 6), 565–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S. (2006 a). Prompting designers to design. Proc. Design 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S. (2006 b). An approach to assist designers with their queries and design. Proc. ASME 2006 Design, Theory and Methodology Conf.Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S., Kim, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2006). A methodology for creating ontologies in engineering design. ASME Computing in Information Engineering 7 ( 2), 132–140.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S., Kim, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2007). A methodology for creating ontologies in engineering design. Transactions of the ASME Journal of Computing in Information Science in Engineering 7, 132–140.Google Scholar
Alberts, L.K., & Dikker, F. (1994). Integrating standards and synthesis knowledge using the YMIR ontology. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design '94 (Gero, J.S., Ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Anderl, R., Grabowski, H., & Pratt, M. (1991). Advanced Modelling for CAD/CAM Systems, Research Report ESPRIT Project 322, Vol. 7. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M. (1980). Machine design methods based on systematic approach—contribution to the design theory. PhD Dissertation. Lind Institute of Technology, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bakemann, R., & Gottam, J.M. (1997). Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghtol, C. (1986). Semantic validity: concepts of warrant in bibliographic classification systems. Library Resources & Technical Services 30 ( 2), 109–125.Google Scholar
Blessing, L. (1994). A process based approach to computer supported engineering design. PhD Dissertation. University of Twente.Google Scholar
Brewster, C., & O'Hara, K. (2007). Knowledge representation with ontologies: present challenges—future possibilities. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 65 ( 7), 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, M., & Culley, S. (2008). Investigating ontology development for engineering design support. Advanced Engineering Informatics 22 ( 1), 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R., Shrobe, H., & Szolovits, P. (1993). What is a knowledge representation. AI Magazine 14 ( 1), 17–33.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Breis, J., & Martinez-Bejar, R. (2002). A cooperative framework for integrating ontologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 5, 665–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5 ( 2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunendran, G., Cutting-Decelle, A.F., Young, R.I.M., & Bourey, J.P. (2007). Information organisation in design: an application of formal ontologies. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED '07Paris.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J.M., Stone, R.B., Szykman, S., McAdams, D.A., & Wood, K.L. (2001). Evolving a functional basis for engineering design. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. DETC 2001, Report No. DTM-21688, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjorland, B. (2007). Lifeboat for knowledge organization. Accessed at http://www.db.dkGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V. (1976). Theorie der Konstruktionsprozesse. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems—A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO. (1997). ISO 10303: External Representation of Product Data Model, ISO Report TC184/SC4. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M. (2003). Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review 18 ( 1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mitzoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15 ( 4), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, F.L. (1988). Knowledge integrated product modelling for design and manufacture. Proc. 2nd Toyota Conf.Aichi, Japan.Google Scholar
Kumar, P., & Mocko, G. (2007). Modeling and analysis of an ontology of engineering design activities using the design structure matrix DETC2007-35634. Proc. ASME Int. Design Technical Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf.Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
Mehkilef, M., Bourey, J.P., & Bigand, M. (2003). An UML modelling of an architecture for knowledge documentation. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED '03Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Merkamm, H. (1995). Product modelling: a prerequisite for effective product development. Proc. Produktmodeller95, Linkoping University of Technology.Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H. (1999). Design modelling in a designer's workbench—contribution to a design language. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Nanda, J., Simpson, T.W., Kumara, S.R.T., & Shooter, S.B. (2006). A methodology for product family ontology development using formal concept analysis and Web Ontology Language. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 6 ( 2), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Origins of the IEEE standard upper ontology. Working Notes of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, pp. 37–42, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
National Information Standards Organisation. (1994). ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993: Guidelines for the Construction, Format and Management of Monolingual Thesauri. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1988). Engineering Design. London: Design Council.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. (1992). Concurrent development in manufaturing—based on dispositional mechanisms. PhD Thesis. University of Denmark, Department of Control and Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Rezgui, Y. (2006). Ontology-centered knowledge management using information retrieval techniques. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 20 ( 44), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural and the techno-physical. Design Studies 19 ( 2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salminen, V., & Verho, A. (1991). Experiences of using meta modelling in systematic design of mechatronics. Proc. ICED '91. Zurich: Heurista.Google Scholar
Sim, S.K., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2003). Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design 14 ( 4), 200–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štorga, M., Andreasen, M.M., & Marjanović, D. (2005). Towards a formal design model based on a genetic design model system. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED '05 (Samuel, A., & Lewis, W., Eds.). Melbourne: Engineers Institution of Engineers, Australia, II National Circuit.Google Scholar
Štorga, M., Andreasen, M.M., & Marjanović, D. (in press). The design ontology—contribution to the design knowledge exchange and management. Journal of Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Štorga, M., Marjanović, D., & Andreasen, M.M. (2007). Relationships between the concepts in the design ontology. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED '07, pp. 531–532, Ecole Centrale Paris and The Design Society, Paris.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., Kiriyama, T., Takeda, H., Xue, D., & Yoshikawa, H. (1989). Metamodel: a key to intelligent CAD systems. Research in Engineering Design 1 ( 1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11 ( 2), 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3, 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar