Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-dfw9g Total loading time: 0.325 Render date: 2022-08-08T04:12:47.556Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Improved knowledge management through first-order logic in engineering design ontologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2009

Paul Witherell
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
Sundar Krishnamurty
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
Ian R. Grosse
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
Jack C. Wileden
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

This paper presents the use of first-order logic to improve upon currently employed engineering design knowledge management techniques. Specifically, this work uses description logic in unison with Horn logic, to not only guide the knowledge acquisition process but also to offer much needed support in decision making during the engineering design process in a distributed environment. The knowledge management methods introduced are highlighted by the ability to identify modeling knowledge inconsistencies through the recognition of model characteristic limitations, such as those imposed by model idealizations. The adopted implementation languages include the Semantic Web Rule Language, which enables Horn-like rules to be applied to an ontological knowledge base and the Semantic Web's native Web Ontology Language. As part of this work, an ontological tool, OPTEAM, was developed to capture key aspects of the design process through a set of design-related ontologies and to serve as an application platform for facilitating the engineering design process. The design, analysis, and optimization of a classical I-beam problem are presented as a test-bed case study to illustrate the capabilities of these ontologies in OPTEAM. A second, more extensive test-bed example based on an industry-supplied medical device design problem is also introduced. Results indicate that well-defined, networked relationships within an ontological knowledge base can ultimately lead to a refined design process, with guidance provided by the identification of infeasible solutions and the introduction of “best-case” alternatives. These case studies also show how the application of first-order logic to engineering design improves the knowledge acquisition, knowledge management, and knowledge validation processes.

Type
Regular Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Alberts, L.K., & Dikker, F. (1992). Integrating standards and synthesis knowledge using the YMIR ontology. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 517534. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Becker, B.J., & Kaepp, G.A. (1997). BDS: a knowledge-based bumber design system. 1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC97/CIE-4272, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
Bohm, M.R., Stone, R.B., Simpson, T.W., & Steva, E.D. (2006). Introduction of a data schema: the inner workings of a design repository. Proc. ASME IDETC/CIE.Google Scholar
Borgida, A. (1996). On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artificial Intelligence 82(1–2), 353367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C. (1985). Capturing mechanical design knowledge. Proc. ASME Int. Computers in Engineering Conf., Boston.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B.G., & Shortliffe, E.H. (1984). Rule Based Expert Systems: The Mycin Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Bullinger, H.J., Warschat, J., Schumacher, O., Slama, A., & Ohlhausen, P. (2005). Ontology-Based Project Management for Acceleration of Innovation Projects. LNCS, Vol. 3379. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
de Kleer, J. & Brown, J.S. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In Mental Models (Genter, D., & Stevens, E.L., Eds.), pp. 155190. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dos Santos, B.L., & Mookerjee, V. (1991). Towards optimal expert system design, Proc. 24th Hawaii Int. Conf. Systems Sciences.Google Scholar
Erickson, D.M., Brown, D.R., Hwang, K., Pan, Y., & Daga, A. (1997). A framework for cooperating engineering knowledge agents. 1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC97/CIE-4299, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
Euler, E.E., Jolly, S.D., & Curtis, H.H. (2001). The failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander: a perspective from the people involved. Proc. Guidance and Control 2001, Paper No. AAS 01-074. Springfield, VA: American Astronautical Society.Google Scholar
Friedman-Hill, E. (2003). Jess in Action. Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications.Google Scholar
Genesereth, M., & Fikes, R. (2001). Knowledge Interchange Format Version 3.0 Reference Manual Technical Report, Logic Group Report Logic-92-1, Stanford University. Accessed at http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/kif-manual.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gennari, J., Musen, M.A., Fergerson, R.W., Grosso, W.E., Crubézy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N.F., & Tu, S.W. (2003). The evolution of Protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 58(1), 89123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A., Bhatta, S., & Stroulia, E. (1996). KRITIK: an early case-based design system. In Issues and Applications of Case-Based Reasoning to Design (Maher, M., & Pu, P., Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goel, A., Gomez, A., Grue, N., Murdock, J.W., Recker, M., & Govindaraj, T. (1996). Explanatory interface in interactive design environments. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Gottlob, G., & Nejdl, W. (1990). Proc. Expert Systems in Engineering, Principles and Applications, Int. Workshop. LNCS, Vol. 462. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Grosse, I.R., Milton-Benoit, J.M., & Wileden, J.C. (2005). Ontologies for supporting engineering analysis models. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 19(1), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosof, N.B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., & Cecker, S. (2003). Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. World Wide Web WWW2003, pp. 4857, Budapest, Hungary, May 20–24.Google Scholar
Gruber, T., & Olsen, G. (1994). An ontology for engineering mathematics. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Doyle, J., Torasso, P., & Sandewall, E., Eds.), pp. 258269. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haarslev, V., Möller, R., & Wessel, M. (2004). Querying the Semantic Web with Racer + nRQL. KI-04 Workshop on Applications on Description Logics.Google Scholar
Henson, B., Juster, N., & de Pennington, A. (1994). Towards an integrated representation of function, behavior and form, computer aided conceptual design. Proc. 1994 Lancaster Int. Workshop on Engineering Design (Sharpe, J., & Oh, V., Eds.), pp. 95111. Lancaster: Lancaster University EDC.Google Scholar
Horn, A. (1956). On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. Journal of Symbolic Logic 16, 1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Bechhofer, S., & Tsarkov, D. (2005). OWL rules: a proposal and prototype implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 2340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Y., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1992). Design verification through function and behavior-oriented representations: bridging the gap between function and behavior. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 597616. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., & Hendler, J. (2005). Swoop: a Web ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics 4(1). doi:10.1016/j.websem.2005.10.001Google Scholar
Kanuri, N. (2007). Ontologies and methods for interoperability of engineering analysis models (EAM's) in an e-design environment. Master's Thesis. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Kifer, M., & Lausen, G. (1989). F-logic: a higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance, and scheme. Int. Conf. Management of Data, pp. 134146.Google Scholar
Kim, K., Yang, H., & Manley, D. (2006). Assembly design ontology for service-oriented design collaboration. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 3(5), 603613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, A.Y., & Rousset, M.C. (1998). Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 165209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, K.N. (1998). Agent support for collaborative design, 1998 ASME Computers in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC98/CIE-5551.Google Scholar
Noy, N.F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R.W., & Musen, M.A. (2001). Creating Semantic Web contents with Protege-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 6071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, L., & Gero, J.S. (1996). Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy based design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 289312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, L., Dutta, D., & Sriram, R. (2005). Ontology-based exchange of product data semantics. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 2(3), 213225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, B. (2004). Knowledge driven automation. Enterprise Engineering Systems, ParTech 2004.Google Scholar
Ranta, M., Mäntylä, M., Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Integration of functional and feature based product modeling—the IMS/GNOSIS Experience. Computer-Aided Design 28(5), 371381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. (2004). Getting the most gains out of knowledge-based engineering—Parker Aerospace Experiences. 2004 Annual Conf. TechniFair.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Schauß, M. (1989). Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR ‘89 (Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J., & Reiter, R., Eds.), pp. 421431. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Shepar, M.S., Bachmann, L., Georges, M.K., & Korngold, E.V. (1990). Framework for reliable generation and control of analysis idealizations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 82(1–3), 257280.Google Scholar
Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., & Katz, Y. (2004). Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. 3rd Int. Semantic Web Conf. ISWC2004.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D., Dawid, A., Lauritzen, S., & Cowel, R. (1993). Bayesian analysis in expert systems. Statistical Science 8(3), 219247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szykman, S., Sriram, R.D., Bochenek, C., & Racz, J. (1998). The NIST Design Repository Project. Advances in Soft Computer-Engineering Design and Manufacturing. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Szykman, S., Sriram, R.D., Bochenek, C., Racz, J.W., & Senfaute, J. (2000). Design repositories: engineering design's new knowledge base. Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 15, 4855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsarkov, D., Riazanov, A., Bechhofer, S., & Horrocks, I. (2004). Using vampire to reason with OWL. 3rd Int. Semantic Web Conf.Google Scholar
Turkiyyah, G.M., & Fenves, S.J. (1996). Knowledge-based assistance for finite element modeling. AI Applications in Civil and Structural Engineering 11(3), 2332.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M.,Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 275288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G., Tabet, S., & Boley, H. (2003). MOF-RuleML: the abstract syntax of RuleML as a MOF model. Integrate 2003, OMG Meeting, Boston.Google Scholar
Witherell, P., Krishnamurty, S., & Grosse, I.R. (2006). Ontologies for supporting engineering design optimization. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 7(2), 141150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Improved knowledge management through first-order logic in engineering design ontologies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Improved knowledge management through first-order logic in engineering design ontologies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Improved knowledge management through first-order logic in engineering design ontologies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *