Reference ontologies for manufacturing Bob Young - R Young, N Hastilow, M Imran, N Chungoora Z Usman and A-F Cutting-Decelle.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Towards Ontology-based standards? Howard Mason 26-March-2009 Ontology Summit 2009 – Synthesis Panel.
Advertisements

Dr. Leo Obrst MITRE Information Semantics Information Discovery & Understanding Command & Control Center February 6, 2014February 6, 2014February 6, 2014.
1 Building scientific Virtual Research Environments in D4Science Paul Polydoras University of Athens, Greece.
MDI 2010, Oslo, Norway Behavioural Interoperability to Support Model-Driven Systems Integration Alek Radjenovic, Richard Paige The University of York,
Human Views for MODAF Dr Anne Bruseberg Systems Engineering & Assessment Ltd, UK on behalf of the Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre.
ISO TC184/SC4 Future architecture Rotterdam Progress on the Future SC4 Architecture PWI Friday 13 th November 2009.
CS 411W - Notes Product Development Documentation.
Presented by: Thabet Kacem Spring Outline Contributions Introduction Proposed Approach Related Work Reconception of ADLs XTEAM Tool Chain Discussion.
Connecting People With Information DoD Net-Centric Services Strategy Frank Petroski October 31, 2006.
OASIS Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0
Harmonisation of Standards for Enterprise Integration – an urgent need
Software Testing and Quality Assurance
Knowledge Acquisitioning. Definition The transfer and transformation of potential problem solving expertise from some knowledge source to a program.
David Harrison Senior Consultant, Popkin Software 22 April 2004
Domain-Specific Software Engineering Alex Adamec.
Application of PDM Technologies for Enterprise Integration 1 SS 14/15 By - Vathsala Arabaghatta Shivarudrappa.
MDC Open Information Model West Virginia University CS486 Presentation Feb 18, 2000 Lijian Liu (OIM:
©Ian Sommerville 2004Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 18 Slide 1 Software Reuse.
1 Proposed PLCS TC Organization and Functional Responsibilities Revision
Overview of the Database Development Process
Chapter 6 System Engineering - Computer-based system - System engineering process - “Business process” engineering - Product engineering (Source: Pressman,
Ontology Development Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University Harvard Medical School.
ITEC224 Database Programming
9/14/2012ISC329 Isabelle Bichindaritz1 Database System Life Cycle.
Assessing the Suitability of UML for Modeling Software Architectures Nenad Medvidovic Computer Science Department University of Southern California Los.
Nancy Lawler U.S. Department of Defense ISO/IEC Part 2: Classification Schemes Metadata Registries — Part 2: Classification Schemes The revision.
1 Synchronize work on DEXs and reference data between PLCS pilots and OASIS/PLCS - Proposed PLCS TC Organization and Functional Responsibilities.
1 MFI-5: Metamodel for Process models registration HE Keqing, WANG Chong State Key Lab. Of Software Engineering, Wuhan University
Page 1 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7/WG 7 N Summary of the Alignment of System and Software Life Cycle Process Standards The material in this briefing.
CAM-I Scalable Flexible Manufacturing Initiative NGMS Task 6.1.
Development Process and Testing Tools for Content Standards OASIS Symposium: The Meaning of Interoperability May 9, 2006 Simon Frechette, NIST.
© DATAMAT S.p.A. – Giuseppe Avellino, Stefano Beco, Barbara Cantalupo, Andrea Cavallini A Semantic Workflow Authoring Tool for Programming Grids.
11 CORE Architecture Mauro Bruno, Monica Scannapieco, Carlo Vaccari, Giulia Vaste Antonino Virgillito, Diego Zardetto (Istat)
1/26/2004TCSS545A Isabelle Bichindaritz1 Database Management Systems Design Methodology.
Modelling Class T16: Conceptual Modelling – Architecture Image from
An Ontological Framework for Web Service Processes By Claus Pahl and Ronan Barrett.
Component Based SW Development and Domain Engineering 1 Component Based Software Development and Domain Engineering.
1 ISO TC184/SC4 Industrial Data ISO JTC1/SC32 Meeting Berlin, Germany Gerald Radack Concurrent Technologies Corp.
Joint Meeting Report on Standards 8 July Recent Accomplishments Systems Modeling Language (SysML) specification accepted for adoption by OMG AP233.
Intelligent Systems Configuration Services for Flexible Dynamic Global Production Networks FLEXINET FP7 project – now in negotiation.
Trustworthy Semantic Webs Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham The University of Texas at Dallas Lecture #4 Vision for Semantic Web.
OSLC PLM Reference model April Summary of the OSLC PLM Reference Model V0.4 April 4th 2011 Gray Bachelor Mike Loeffler OSLC PLM Workgroup.
Issues in Ontology-based Information integration By Zhan Cui, Dean Jones and Paul O’Brien.
16/11/ Semantic Web Services Language Requirements Presenter: Emilia Cimpian
STEP Tutorial: “ Fundamentals of STEP” David Briggs, Boeing January 16, 2001 ® PDES, Inc NASA STEP Workshop step.nasa.gov.
Information Architecture The Open Group UDEF Project
1 Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting - Thu Co-conveners: PeterYim, LeoObrst & MikeDean ref.:
Approach to building ontologies A high-level view Chris Wroe.
Achieving Semantic Interoperability at the World Bank Designing the Information Architecture and Programmatically Processing Information Denise Bedford.
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division Development Process and Testing Tools for Content Standards Simon Frechette National Institute of Standards.
ONION Ontologies In Ontology Community of Practice Leader
Parts library and data dictionary Dr. Norman Swindells, CEng, FIMMM Ferroday Ltd, UK Tuesday, April 21, 2015(c) Ferroday Ltd, 2015 Vico Equense 1.
OWL Web Ontology Language Summary IHan HSIAO (Sharon)
Using XML Schema to define NETCONF Content Sharon Chisholm Alex Clemm TJ Tjong
Ontology in MBSE How ontologies fit into MBSE The benefits and challenges.
WELCOME TO OUR PRESENTATION UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML)
Systems Realization Laboratory SysML-based Reference Models for Fluid Power Components Chris Paredis, Raphael Kobi Product & Systems Lifecycle Management.
1 Ontological Foundations For SysML Henson Graves September 2010.
OSLC PLM Reference model February Summary of the OSLC PLM Reference Model V0.2 February 22 nd 2011 Gray Bachelor Mike Loeffler OSLC PLM Workgroup.
SysML 2.0 Formalism: Requirement Benefits, Use Cases, and Potential Language Architectures Formalism WG December 6, 2016.
IC Conceptual Data Model (CDM)
SysML v2 Formalism: Requirements & Benefits
Toronto STEP Meeting – Oct. 6-11, 1996
Lecture #11: Ontology Engineering Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham
Towards a Reference Ontology for Manufacturing
Enterprise Data Model Enterprise Architecture approach Insights on application for through-life collaboration 2018 – E. Jesson.
System Modeling Assessment & Roadmap Joint OMG/INCOSE Working Group
Session 2: Metadata and Catalogues
Metadata in Digital Preservation: Setting the Scene
Presentation transcript:

Reference ontologies for manufacturing Bob Young - R Young, N Hastilow, M Imran, N Chungoora Z Usman and A-F Cutting-Decelle

Outline Background - lots of useful standards Need for multiple standards across manufacturing Problems in interoperability across standards The IMKS project and the use of formal semantics Towards a reference ontology for manufacture

Global Manufacture Key areas: Modelling Manufacturing Capability Product Lifecycle Management Knowledge Sharing and Reuse Integration and Inter- operability Design for Manufacture Concurrent Engineering Manufacturing Planning Supply Chain Capability Information & Knowledge Infrastructures for Manufacture ICT in Manufacturing – background to our work at Loughborough University Manufacturing Industries: Aerospace Automotive Machine tools Electrical machines Injection moulding Food Manufacturing Industries: Aerospace Automotive Machine tools Electrical machines Injection moulding Food

Lots of useful standards Focus mainly on ISO TC 184 SC4 – “Industrial data” Examples of useful standards – ISO STEP overview – ISO machining features – ISO Product Lifecycle Support – ISO Parts Library – ISO MANDATE – ISO PSL – ………………..

STEP-ISO ISO PLIB ISO PLIB ISO PSL STEP NC ISO ISO AP239- PLCS ISO MANDATE ISO MANDATE STEP-ISO AP224 Feature Based Manufacturing I SO Cutting Tool Standard

Issues in using multiple ISO Standards for information sharing Multiple Interpretations of nominally the same concept Multiple definitions of the same term

Example: multiple interpretations from PRODUCT DEFINITION (ISO ) (uses definition from ISO ) ”a thing or substance produced by a natural or artificial process” e.g.: Product definition from (ISO 10303_1) ENTITY Product ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE OF (ONEOF (Breakdown, Breakdown_element, Document, Interface_connector, Interface_specification, Part, Requirement, Slot)); id : STRING; name : STRING; description : OPTIONAL STRING;BreakdownBreakdown_elementDocumentInterface_connectorInterface_specificationPartRequirementSlot END_ENTITY; from PLCS Part-439 (ISO ) (uses definition from ISO )

Multiple definitions for the same term from MACHINING FEATURE (ISO 10303_224) “A Part is a material or functional element that is intended to constitute a component of different products” from PLIB (ISO 13584_1) “A Part is the physical item which is intended to be produced through the manufacturing process. Each Part may be one of the following: Manufactured_assembly, or Single_piece_part. The data associated with a Part are the following: — manufacture_authorization; — manufactured_by_organization; — manufactured_by_person; — owned_by_organization; — owned_by_person; — part_description; — part_id; — part_name; — part_revision_id; — physical_form; — property_characteristics; — quantity_ordered; — security_classification. ” Example: Part

Resource (ISO ; ISO ): Any device, tool and means, except raw material and final product components, at the disposal of the enterprise to produce goods or services. This definition includes ISO definition. Resource (ISO ): Something that may be described in terms of a behavior, a capability, or a performance measure that is pertinent to the process. Resource (ISO 15704): An enterprise entity that provides some or all of the capabilities required by the execution of an enterprise activity and/or business process. Michel, J.J., Terminology extracted from some manufacturing and modelling related standards. CEN/TC 310 N1119R2. Problem – multiple standards with multiple semantics

ISO TC184/SC4 Future architecture Rotterdam SC4 recognise need for formal ontologies I ndustrial D ata I ntegrated O ntologies and M odels

ISO TC184/SC4 Future architecture Rotterdam definitions of the concepts data model schemas data model schemas information flows process components process components process components ARM schemas analyse scope information flows AIM/MIM schemas analysis information requirements defines the data about the concepts needed to fulfil the information requirements data model schemas data model schemas implementation specification domain knowledgedomain knowledge in AAM mapping domain knowledge as reference data reference data Current ISO approach

ISO TC184/SC4 Future architecture Rotterdam reference data knowledge of the concepts reference data definitions of the concepts data model schemas data model schemas information flows process components process components process components definitions of the concepts analyse scope information flows data model schemas analysis information requirements defines the data about the concepts needed to fulfil the information requirements reference data data model schemas data model schemas implementation specification domain knowledge knowledge of the concepts (an ontology) A part of the IDIOM approach

Common Concepts Knowledge Verification Formally defined core- concepts i.e. using logic statements Specialised domain Concepts Specialised domain concepts Common KB Specialised KB Concept underlying a Manufacturing Reference Ontology (from IMKS)

Formal definitions using a Common Logic base - KFL (=> (Core.Resource ?r) (exists (?c) (and (Core.Capability ?c) (Core.hasCapability ?r ?c)))) :IC soft "Every resource may have some capability." (=> (Core.Resource ?r) (exists (?e) (and (Core.Enterprise ?e) (Core.isHeldBy ?r ?e)))) :IC soft "Every resource may be held by some enterprise." (=> (Core.Resource ?r) (exists (?p) (and (Core.Process ?p) (Core.isUsedBy ?r ?p)))) :IC soft "Every resource may be used by some process." Cannot be misinterpreted Can be used to build new ‘specialisations’ to suit specific requirements Inferences can be made based on the logic

Ontology Specialisation Time The level of compliance of new systems or new system versions can be checked

Reference ontology aspects explored to date Design for machining Design for assembly Interoperability compliance across manufacturing systems

The IMKS project developed a proof of concept formal ontology related to sharing knowledge across product design and machining

The concept extended across design for assembly and assembly planning

The concept extended to manufacturing systems interoperability

Formalisms specified in KFL and exploited in HIGHFLEET’s XKS environment Each of the sets of concepts illustrated in these figures have been formally specified in KFL They have been implemented and used in knowledge sharing and interoperability validation experiments.

(=> (Feature ?f) (exists(?AOI) (and (AttributeOfInterest ?AOI) (hasAttributeOfInterest ?f ?AOI)))) :IC hard "Every feature has an Attribute of Interest (=> (FormFeature ?ffeature) (exists (?form) (and (Form ?form) (FormFeature ?ffeature) (hasAttributeOfInterest ?ffeature ?form)))) :IC hard "A Form exist as an Attribute of Interest for a FormFeature” (=> (DesignFeature ?df) ((exists(?function) (and (Function ?function) (hasAttributeOfInterest ?df ?function))))) :IC hard "A function exists for a DesignFeature" (=> (ProductionFeature ?Turningf) (exists (?mfgmethod) (and (ManufacturingMethod ?manufacturingmethod) (hasAttributeOfInterest ?Turningf ?mfgmethod)))) :IC hard "ManufacturingMethod exists for every Productionfeature" An Example - Feature Specialisations in Common Logic

The FLEXINET Concept – a new FP7 FoF project in negotiation

Conclusions The approach is showing significant potential There is much still to be done The approach we have taken is pragmatic –There will be a need at some point for an agreed set of underlying foundation concepts –As formal semantic languages develop there will be a need for them to remain compatible There will be a balance to be found between the benefits of enabling interoperability and the costs and constraints of designing formally constrained semantic systems