Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-18T16:35:34.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An object-centered approach for modelling engineering design products: Combining description logic and object-oriented modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

M. Maher Hakim  and
James H. Garrett Jr
M. Maher Hakim
Affiliation:
Autodesk Inc., 111 McInnis Parkway, San Rafael, CA 94903, U.S.A.
James H. Garrett Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Class-centered data models, such as the object-oriented data model, are inadequate for supporting engineering design product models because of their lack of support for object evolution, schema evolution, and semantic and user-defined relationships. Description logic overcomes these limitations by providing constructs for intentional description of classes, relationships, and objects. By combining description logic with object-oriented modelling concepts, design product schemas and data can be uniformly represented and modified throughout the design process.

Keywords

Data ModellingDescription LogicObject EvolutionSchema Evolution

Information

Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , June 1997 , pp. 187 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Biliris, A. (1989). Management of objects in engineering design applications. Report No. BU-CS TR 89–005. Boston University, Department of Computer Science, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Borgida, A. (1991). Terminological frames as types: Inference rules and prospective applications. Report No. DCS-TR-280. Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., & Resnick, L.A. (1989). CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects. Proc. ACM SICMOD Conf. Manage. Data, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brachman, R.J. (1977). A structural paradigm for representing knowledge. PhD Thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Brill, D. (1993). LOOM reference manual version 2.0. ISX Corporation, Westlake Village, CA.Google Scholar
Carre, B., & Geib, J. (1990). The point of view notion for multiple inheritance. Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Object-Oriented Programm. Syst. Lang. Applications, OOPSLA-90, 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, E.E., & Katz, R.H. (1990). Inheritance in computer-aided design databases: Semantics and implementation issues. Computer-Aided Design 22(8), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C.M. (1992). A data model analysis of modularity and extensibility in building databases. Building Environ. 27(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C.M., Bond, A., & Chase, S. (1991). A formal approach for product model information. Res. Eng. Design 2(2), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C.M., & Fereshetian, N. (1994). Information models for product design: A comparison. Computer-Aided Design 26(7), 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, M.M. (1993). Modeling evolving information about engineering design products. PhD Dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Hakim, M.M., & Garrett, J.H. Jr (1992). Object-oriented techniques for representing engineering knowledge and data: Pros and cons. Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Eng, 21–34.Google Scholar
Hirst, G. (1991). Existence assumptions in knowledge representation. Artif. Intell. 49, 199–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, H.C., Abdallah, J., Phan, D.H.D., & Lavakare, A.P. (1992). Primitive-composite approach for structural data modeling. J. Cornput. Civil. Eng. 6(1), 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization. (1991). EXPRESS language reference manual. ISO 10303-Part 11. Prepared by ISO TC 184/SC4/WG5. Document N14.Google Scholar
Katz, R.H. (1985). Information management for engineering design. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keirouz, W.T. (1988). Domain modeling of constructed facilities for robotic applications. PhD Dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Kim, W., Banerjee, J., Chou, H., & Garza, J.F. (1990). Object-oriented support for CAD. Computer-Aided Design 22(8), 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, J.A., & Rowe, L.A. (1991). Developing a GUIDE using objectoriented programming. Proc. OOPSLA '91, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacGregor, R., & Burstein, M.H. (1991). Using a description classifier to enhance knowledge representation. IEEE Expert June, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKellar, B., & Peckham, J. (1992). Representing design objects in SORAC. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Design, 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugridge, W.B., Hamer, J., & Hosking, J.G. (1990). Functional extensions to an object-oriented programming language. Report No. 49. Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Narayanaswamy, K., & Rao, K.V.B. (1988). An incremental mechanism for schema evolution in engineering domains. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Data Eng, 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navathe, S.B., Shamkant, B., & Cornelio, A. (1990). Modeling physical systems by complex structural objects and complex functional objects. In Advances in Database Technology (Bancilhon, F., Thanos, C., and Tsichritzis, D., Eds.), pp. 238–252. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Nguyen, G.T., & Rieu, D. (1991). Representing design objects. Proc. First Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Design, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel-Schneider, P.F. (1990). Practical, object-based knowledge representation for knowledge-based systems. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckham, J., & Maryanski, F. (1988). Semantic data models. ACM Comput. Surveys 20(3), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick, L.A., Borgida, A.R., Brachman, J., McGuinness, D.L., & Patel-Schneider, P.F. (1996). CLASSIC: Description and reference manual, version 2.3. AI Principles Research Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.Google Scholar
Rigopoulos, D.R., & Oppenheim, I.J. (1992). Intelligent objects for synthesis of structural systems. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 6(3), 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumbaugh, J. (1987). Relations as semantic constructs in an objectoriented language. Proc. Second Int. Conf. Object-Oriented Programming Syst., Lang. Appl, OOPSLA-87, 466–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sause, R., & Powell, G.H. (1990). A design process model for computer integrated structural engineering. Eng. Comput. 6, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sause, R., & Powell, G.H. (1991). A design process model for computer integrated structural engineering: Design phases and tasks. Eng. Comput. 7, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciore, E. (1989). Object specialization. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 7(2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, A.V., Rumbaugh, J.E., Hamel, J.H., & Borsari, R.A. (1989). DSM: An object-relationship modeling language. Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Object-Oriented Programming Syst., Lang. Appl., OOPSLA-89, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, N.K., Bloor, M.S., & de Pennington, A. (1989). Product data models. Res. Eng. Design. 1(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, W.A. (1991). Understanding subsumption and taxonomy: A framework for progress. In Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge (Sowa, J., Ed.), pp. 45–94. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, J., & Demaid, A. (1992). Modeling heterogeneous engineering knowledge as transactions between delegating objects. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Design, 141–160.Google Scholar