Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 681–688 | Cite as

Manufacturing interoperability

  • S. R. Ray
  • A. T. Jones
Article

Abstract

As manufacturing and commerce become ever more global, companies are dependent increasingly upon the efficient and effective sharing of information with their partners, wherever they may be. Leading manufacturers perform this sharing with computers, which must therefore have the required software to encode and decode the associated electronic transmissions. Because no single company can dictate that all its partners use the same software, standards for how the information is represented become critical for error-free transmission and translation. The terms interoperability and integration are frequently used to refer to this error-free transmission and translation. This paper summarizes two projects underway at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the areas of interoperability testing and integration automation. These projects lay the foundation for at tomorrow’s standards, which we believe will rely heavily upon the use of formal logic representations, commonly called ontologies.

Keywords

Interoperability Standards Ontology Formal logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMICE (1993). CIMOSA: Ope3n Systems Architecture for CIM, 2nd revised and extended version. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Gruninger, M., Menzel, C. 2003Process specification language: Principles and applicationsAI Magazine246374Google Scholar
  3. ISO (1994). ISO 10303-1:1994, Industrial automation systems and integration—Product data representation and exchange—Part 1: Overview. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. ISO (1994b). ISO 10303-1:1994, Industrial automation systems and integration—Product data representation and exchange—Part 203: Application Protocol: Configuration controlled design.Google Scholar
  5. Ivezic, N., Anicic, N., Jones, A., & Marjanovic, Z. (2005). Toward Semantics-based Supply Chain Integration. Proceedings of the IFIP 5.7 Advances in Production Management Conference, Rockville, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  6. NIST (1999). Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain, (Planning Report #99-1), available at http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report99-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. NIST (2002). Economic Impact Assessment of the International Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) in Transportation Equipment Industries, (Planning Report #02- 5), 2002, available at http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report02-5.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Schlenoff, C., Ciocoiu, M., Libes, D., & Gruninger, M. (1999). Process Specification Language: Results of the First Pilot Implementation. Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations