Advertisement

Current Issues in Multiple Domain Semantic Reconciliation for Ontology-Driven Interoperability in Product Design and Manufacture

  • Matheus Beltrame Canciglieri
  • Anderson Luis Szejka
  • Osiris Canciglieri Junior
  • Lucy Yoshida
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 540)

Abstract

The competitive environment in which the manufacturing industries are inserted ensures that to achieve competitiveness the businesses must react quickly to change and understand the balance of possible options when making complex decisions. For a high quality, timely decision across a range of complex factors, it is necessary high-quality information and knowledge available at the time of the decision making. However, each business sector requires its own view on the enterprises information it needs. This represents a problem as current software solution provide local support but do not provide trans-disciplinary interoperability that is critical to long term competitiveness. The exploration of semantic technologies has the potential to solve this problem using formalizations to share the knowledge across multi-domain environments, these systems can provide more comprehensive solutions than the approaches employed to date. The aim of this paper is to study the current issues regarding the application of ontology-driven interoperability for Product Development and Manufacture. This objective will be achieved through a literature review on Semantic Interoperability, Semantic Rules and Multiple Domains and a Discussion on the current issues of each topic. This research showed that the knowledge enrichment introduced by knowledge translation models aids the creation of an interoperable environment between the product design and its manufacture.

Keywords

Semantic interoperability Semantic rules Multiple domains Product design and manufacture 

References

  1. 1.
    Engineous. In: Engineous International Symposium Workshop, Novi, Mi, October 10–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, K.-Y., Chin, S., Kwon, O., Ellis, R.D.: Ontology-based modeling and integration of morphological characteristics of assembly joints for network-based collaborative assembly design. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 23, 71–88 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhao, W., Liu, J.K.: OWL/SWRL representation methodology for express-driven product information model part I. Implementation methodology. Comput. Ind. 59, 580–589 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biletskiy, Y., Vorochek, O., Medovoy, A.: Building ontologies for interoperability among learning objects and learners. In: Orchard, B., Yang, C., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3029, pp. 977–986. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24677-0_100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mizoguchi, R.: Tutorial on ontological engineering part 1: introduction to ontological engineering. New Gener. Comput. 21(4), 365–384 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mizoguchi, R.: Tutorial on ontological engineering part 2: ontology development tools and languages. New Gener. Comput. 22(2), 61–96 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizoguchi, R.: Tutorial on ontological: engineering part 3 advanced course of ontological engineering. New Gener. Comput. 22(2), 198–220 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fensel, D.: Ontologies: A Silver Bullet For Knowledge Management And Electronic Commerce, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-09083-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chungoora, N., Young, R.I.M.: Semantic reconciliation across design and manufacturing knowledge models: a logic-based approach. Appl. Ontol. 6(4), 295–315 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gal, A., Anaby-Tavor, A., Trombetta, A., Montesi, D.: A framework for modeling and evaluating automatic semantic reconciliation. Int. J. Very Large Databases 14(1), 50–67 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beau, S., Taouil, F.-T., Hassanaly, P.: Elaborate knowledge between necessity and opportunity. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Information Systems and Economic Intelligence (SIIE), Sousse, Tunisia, pp. 317–330 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Sinderen, M.: Challenges and solutions in enterprise computing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2(4), 341–346 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harding, J.A., Shahbaz, M.: Manufacturing system engineering ontology for semantic interoperability across extended project teams. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42(24), 5099–5118 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Penciuc, D., Durupt, A., Belkadi, F., Eynard, B., Rowson, H.: Towards a PLM interoperability for a collaborative design support system. Procedia CIRP 25, 369–376 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rozenfeld, H., et al.: Gestão De Desenvolvimento De Produtos: Uma Referência Para A Melhoria Do Processo Product Development Management: A Reference To Improve The Process. Saraiva, São Paulo (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chungoora, N., Young, R.I.M.: A framework to support semantic interoperability in product design and manufacture. Ph.d. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Junior, O.C., Young, R.I.M.: Information mapping across injection moulding design and manufacture domains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41(7), 4437–4462 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, A., et al.: A multi-agent system to facilitate component-based process modeling and design. Comput. Chem. Eng. 32(10), 2290–2305 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gomez-Perez, A., Corcho, O., Lopez, M.F.: Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the Areas Of Knowledge Management, E-Commerce and the Semantic Web, p. 404. Springer, London (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b97353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO 18629, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Process Specification Language (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Durbha, S.S., King, R.L., Shah, V.P., Younan, N.H.: A framework for semantic reconciliation of disparate earthobservation thematic data. Comput. Geosci. 35, 761–773 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Harmelen, F.V.: Information Sharing on the Semantic Web, p. 276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b138282CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bassiliades, N.: Swrl2spin: a tool for transforming SWRL rule bases in owl ontologies to object-oriented spin rules, pp. 1–14. Arxiv (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar, S.K., Harding, J.A.: Ontology mapping using description logic and bridging axioms. Comput. Ind. 64(1), 19–28 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Song, S., Zhang, X., Qin, G.: Multi-domain ontology mapping based on semantics. Cluster Comput. 20(4), 3379–3391 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nagy, M., Vargas-Vera, M.: Multiagent ontology mapping framework for the semantic web. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 41(4), 693 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate ProgramPontifical Catholic University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.NHS Electronic SystemsCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations