Ontology-Based Process Modelling for Design

  • Andreas Jordan
  • Matt Selway
  • Georg Grossmann
  • Wolfgang Mayer
  • Markus Stumptner


The design process for large systems, e.g., industrial plants, involves large multi-disciplinary teams. Since each discipline has its own specialised concerns, the common thread is describing the functional requirements of an artefact. In the oil and gas industry, Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) companies are responsible for designing industrial plants whose later use requires exchange of information which is often based on different formats and leads to huge costs due to interoperability overhead. One contender in this space is the ISO15926 standard used for industrial design data interchange. We examine several challenges the standard poses for the conceptual and detailed design phases, and provide an alternative framework grounded on a firm ontological foundation incorporating advanced modelling concepts such as multi-level models and roles that provide a basis for the effective development of meta-model mappings, a novel approach for organisations needing to map to ISO15926.


  1. 1.
    Smith B (2006) Against idiosyncrasy in ontology development. In: Proceedings of the FOIS 2006, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson C, Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Proceedings of the UML2001, Springer, pp 19–33Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maier F et al. (2008) Ontology-based process modelling for design optimisation support. In: DCC ’08, Springer, pp 513–532Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger S et al (2010) Metamodel-based information integration at industrial scale. In: Model driven engineering languages and systems, Springer, Vol. 6395, pp 153–167Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mintchell G (2012) Open O&M demonstrates‘ information interoperability’ for oil and gas applications. Autom World 2012:24–25Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen Y et al (2011) A general knowledge-based framework for conceptual design of multi-disciplinary systems. In: DCC’10, Springer, pp 425–443Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gero J, Kannengiesser U (2006) A function-behaviour-structure ontology of processes. In: DCC’06, Springer, pp 407–422Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2002) The situated function — behaviour — structure framework. In: Artificial intelligence in design ’02, Springer, pp 89–104Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Welch R, Dixon J (1994) Guiding conceptual design through behavioral reasoning. Res Eng Des 6(3):169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mizoguchi R et al (2012) Ontological analyses of roles. In: Proceedings of the FedCSIS ’12, pp 489–496Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitamura Y et al (2006) An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Appl Ontol 1(3–4):237–262MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitamura Y, Mizoguchi R (2013) Ontological characterization of functions: perspectives for capturing functions and modeling guidelines. AI EDAM 27(Special Issue 03):259–269Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felfernig A et al (2003) Configuration knowledge representations for Semantic Web applications. AI EDAM 17(1):31–50Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masolo C et al (2005) Relational roles and qua-individuals. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Roles, AAAI, pp 103–112Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atkinson C et al (2009) A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6):742–755Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mizoguchi R et al (2007) The model of roles within an ontology development tool: hozo. Appl Ontol 2(2):159–179MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masolo C et al (2004) Social roles and their descriptions. In: KR2004, pp 267–277Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sciore E (1989) Object specialization. TOIS 7(2):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vieu L et al (2008) Artefacts and roles: modelling strategies in a multiplicative ontology. In: Proceedings of the FOIS ’08Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erden MS (2008) A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. AI EDAM 22(2):147–169Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO 15926 (2003) Industrial automation systems and integration – integration of lifecycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities. Part 2: data modelGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kitamura Y, Mizoguchi R (2010) Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. In: Proceedings of the FOIS ’10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Jordan
    • 1
  • Matt Selway
    • 1
  • Georg Grossmann
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Mayer
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations