Ontological Commitment for Participative Simulation

  • Jan Goossenaerts
  • Christine Pelletier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2465)

Abstract

This paper analyses the role of ontological commitment in structuring the requirements for the PSIM Environment. This environment aims to support (i) the sharing and the exchange of knowledge between the different actors involved in the design or redesign of a manufacturing enterprise; and (ii) the exchange of information between tools supporting enterprise analysis according to different perspectives (logistic, technologic and human). The techniques for piecemeal ontological commitment are related to two contributions from research on enterprise reference architectures: (i) the dimension of genericity of the ENV 40003 reference architecture and (ii) the relationships between lifecycles of enterprise entities as defined in GERAM. Two kinds of applications illustrate the ontological commitments: support for the interoperation and communication between applications; and the provision of task-specific interfaces to users working in an enterprise.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berg, R.J. van den, Eijnatten, F.M. van, Vink, P., and Goossenaerts, J.B.M.: Leveraging human capital in assembly organizations: The case for participative simulation. Proc. IST conference, Helsinki (1999).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borst, P., Akkermans, H., and Top, J.: Engineering Ontologies. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 46 (1997) 365–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CIMOSA, ESPRIT Consortium AMICE, editor. CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2nd, rev. and ext. ed edition (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ENV 40003. Computer integrated manufacturing-systems architecture-framework for enterprise modelling. European prestandard, CEN/CENELEC (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IFIP-IFAC Task Force. GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology. Version 1.6.1, May 1998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goossenaerts, J.B.M.: Industrial semiosis-founding the deployment of the ubiquitous information infrastructure. Computers in Industry, 43 (2000) 189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guarino, N.: The Role of Identity Conditions in Ontology Design. In C. Freska, D.M. Mark (Eds.) COSIT’99 LNCS 1661 (1999) 221–234, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guarino N., Carrara M., Giaretta, P.: Formalizing Ontological Commitments. In Proc. Of A A AI’94, Seattle, Washington (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nonaka, I.: The Knowledge-Creating Company, Harvard Business Review Nov–Dec (1991) 96–104Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., ‘The knowledge creating company’, Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (six volumes). In: C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss (Eds.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1960)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheer, A.-W.: Business Process Engineering — Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uschold M., King, M., Moralee, S., and Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 13 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Es, R.M., and Post, H.A.: Dynamic Enterprise Modelling: linking business and IT, Kluwer, Deventer, the Netherlands (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise Modeling and Integration, Principles and Applications, Chapman & Hall, London, England (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vink, P., and Peeters, M.: Balancing organizational, technological and human factors: the vision of production management. In: Vink P, Koningsveld EAP, Dhondt S, eds.: Human factors in Organizational Design and Management VI., Elsevier Science Ltd, London (1998) 7–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waterson, A. and Preece, A.: Verifying ontological commitment in knowledge-based systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 12 (1999) 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams, T.J., P. Bernus, J. Brosvic, D. Chen, G. Doumeingts, L. Nemes, J.L. Nevins, B. Vallespir, J. Vlietstra, and D. Zoetekouw. Architectures for integrating manufacturing activities and enterprises. Computers in Industry 24–3 (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Goossenaerts
    • 1
  • Christine Pelletier
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology ManagementEindhoven University of TechnologyMB EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations