Advertisement

Integrating Knowledge-Based Configuration Systems by Sharing Functional Architectures

  • Alexander Felfernig
  • Gerhard Friedrich
  • Dietmar Jannach
  • Markus Zanker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1937)

Abstract

Configuration problems are a thriving application area for declarative knowledge representation that experiences a constant increase in size and complexity of knowledge bases. However, today’s configurators are designed for solving local configuration problems not providing any distributed configuration problem solving functionality. Consequently the challenges for the construction of configuration systems are the integrated support of configuration knowledge base development and maintenance and the integration of methods that enable distributed configuration problem solving. In this paper we show how to employ a standard design language (Unified Modeling Language - UML) for the construction of configuration knowledge bases (component structure and functional architecture) and automatically translate the resulting models into an executable logic representation which can further be exploited for calculating distributed configurations. Functional architectures are shared among cooperating configuration systems serving as basis for the exchange of requirements between those systems. An example for configuring cars shows the whole process from the design of the configuration model to distributed configuration problem solving.

Keywords

Constraint Satisfaction Problem Customer Requirement Electric Equipment Component Type Functional Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V.E. Barker, D.E. O’Connor, J.D. Bachant, and E. Soloway. Expert systems for configuration at Digital: XCON and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 32, 3:298–318, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.H. Bourdeau and B.H.C. Cheng. A formal Semantics for Object Model Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21,10:799–821, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Chandrasekaran. Functional Representation and Causal Processes. Advances in Computers, 38:73–143, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Chandrasekaran, A. Goel, and Y. Iwasaki. Functional Representation as Design Rationale. IEEE Computer, Special Issue on Concurrent Engineering, pages 48–56, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Chandrasekaran, J. Josephson, and R. Benjamins. What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14,1:20–26, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.P. Darr and W.P. Birmingham. An Attribute-Space Representation and Algorithm for Concurrent Engineering. AIEDAM, 10,1:21–35, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Faltings, E. Freuder, and G. Friedrich, editors. Workshop on Configuration. AAAI Technical Report WS-99-05, Orlando, Florida, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. In 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 337–345, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, and D. Jannach. Generating product configuration knowledge bases from precise domain extended UML models. In 12th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Chicago, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Felfernig, D. Jannach, and M. Zanker. Diagrammatic Acquisition of Functional Knowledge for Product Configuration Systems with the Unified Modeling Language. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Edinburgh, UK, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Fleischanderl, G. Friedrich, A. Haselböck, H. Schreiner, and M. Stumptner. Configuring Large Systems Using Generative Constraint Satisfaction. In E. Freuder B. Faltings, editor, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Configuration, volume 13,4, pages 59–68. 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Friedrich and M. Stumptner. Consistency-Based Configuration. In AAAI Workshop on Configuration, Technical Report WS-99-05, pages 35–40, Orlando, Florida, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Lowry, A. Philpot, T. Pressburger, and I. Underwood. A Formal Approach to Domain-Oriented Software Design Environments. In Proceedings 9th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, pages 48–57, Montery, CA, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.W. J ngst M. Heinrich. A resource-based paradigm for the configuring of technical systems from modular components. In Proc. 7th IEEE Conference on AIapplications (CAIA), pages 257–264, Miami, FL, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.L. McGuiness and J.R. Wright. Conceptual Modeling for Configuration: A Description Logic-based Approach. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12,4:333–344, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Mittal and F. Frayman. Towards a Generic Model of Configuration Tasks. In Proc. of the 11th IJCAI, pages 1395–1401, Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Motta, A. Stutt, Z. Zdrahal, K. O Hara, and N. Shadbolt. Solving VT in VITAL: a study in model construction and knowledge reuse. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44,3/4:333–371, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Neches, R. Fikes, T. Finin, T. Gruber, R. Patil, T. Senator, and W. Swartout. Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine, 12,3:36–36, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G.R. Olsen, M. Cutkosky, J.M. Tenenbaum, and T.R. Gruber. Collaborative Engineering based on Knowledge Sharing Agreements. In Proceedings of ACME Database Symposium, pages 11–14, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    H. Peltonen, T. M nnist, T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, A. Martio, and R. Sulonen. Concepts for Modeling Configurable Products. In Proceedings of European Conference Product Data Technology Days, pages 189–196, Sandhurst, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    J.E. Robbins, N. Medvidovic, D.F. Redmiles, and D.S. Rosenblum. Integrating Architecture Description Languages with a Standard Design Method. In 20th Intl. Conference on Software Engineering, pages 209–218, clKyoto, Japan, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    J.T. Runkel, A. Balkany, and W.P. Birmingham. Generating non-brittle configuration-design tools. Artificial Intelligence in Design, Kluwer Academic Publisher, pages 183–200, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. M nnist, and R. Sulonen. Towards a General Ontology of Configuration. AIEDAM, Special Issue: Configuration Design, 12,4:357–372, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    M. Stumptner. An overview of knowledge-based configuration. AI Communications, 10(2), June, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    M. Yokoo, E.H. Durfee, T. Ishida, and K. Kuwabara. The distributed constraint satisfaction problem. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10,5:673–685, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Felfernig
    • 1
  • Gerhard Friedrich
    • 1
  • Dietmar Jannach
    • 1
  • Markus Zanker
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik und AnwendungssystemeProduktionsinformatik, Universitäatsstrasse 65-67KlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations