Advertisement

Flat Versus Hierarchical Information Models in PLM Standardization Frameworks

  • Sylvere Krima
  • Joshua Lubell
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 492)

Abstract

Smart manufacturing requires digital product data to be shared and exchanged among numerous engineering applications and information systems. But no single product data standard can satisfy every integration scenario. Customizable standardization frameworks for Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) attempt to address this problem by allowing users to add new information structures to an existing data model in a controlled manner. A PLM information model may be either flat or hierarchical. We discuss two approaches. One is based on ISO 10303-239 as an exemplar for customizing flat models. The other is based on Open Application Group Integration Specification (OAGIS) as an exemplar for customizing hierarchical models. We evaluate the two approaches and observe that the type of model strongly influences how well the PLM standardization framework meets each evaluation criterion, and that the best choice is use-case dependent.

Keywords

Open Application Group Integration Specification Product Life Cycle Support Reference Data Library Core Components Information modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Jay Ganguli, Peter Denno, Albert Jones, and KC Morris for their insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Ivezic, N., Kulvatunyou, B., Srinivasan, V.: On architecting and composing through-life engineering information services to enable smart manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 22, 45–52 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Terzi, S., Bouras, A., Dutta, D., Garetti, M., Kiritsis, D.: Product lifecycle management – from its history to its new role. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 4, 360–389 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG Product Lifecycle Management Services, v2.1. Object Management Group (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Srinivasan, V.: An integration framework for product lifecycle management. Comput.-Aided Des. 43, 464–478 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 10303-242:2014. Industrial automation systems and integration – product data representation and exchange – part 242: application protocol: managed model-based 3D engineeringGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katzenbach, A., Handschuh, S., Vettermann, S.: JT format (ISO 14306) and AP 242 (ISO 10303): the step to the next generation collaborative product creation. In: Kovács, G., Kochan, D. (eds.) NEW PROLAMAT 2013. IAICT, vol. 411, pp. 41–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-41329-2_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krima, S., Feeney, A.B., Foufou, S.: Dynamic customisation, validation and integration of product data models using semantic web tools. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 7, 38–53 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenves, S.J., Foufou, S., Bock, C., Sriram, R.D.: CPM2: a core model for product data. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 8, 014501 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    ISO 10303-239:2012. Industrial automation systems and integration – product data representation and exchange – part 239: application protocol: product life cycle supportGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Open Applications Group Integration Specification (OAGIS) Release 10.1. Open Applications Group (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rachuri, S., Subrahmanian, E., Bouras, A., Fenves, S.J., Foufou, S., Sriram, R.D.: Information sharing and exchange in the context of product lifecycle management: role of standards. Comput.-Aided Des. 40, 789–800 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML). Version 1.3. Object Management Group (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paviot, T., Cheutet, V., Lamouri, S.: A PLCS framework for PDM/ERP interoperability. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 5, 295 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiorentini, X., Rachuri, S.: STEP-OAGIS Harmonization Joint Working Group: PDM Subgroup Interim Report (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu, Y., Morris, K.C., Frechette, S.: Standards landscape and directions for smart manufacturing systems. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 998–1005 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lampathaki, F., Mouzakitis, S., Gionis, G., Charalabidis, Y., Askounis, D.: Business to business interoperability: a current review of XML data integration standards. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 31, 1045–1055 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Price, D., Bodington, R.: Applying semantic web technology to the life cycle support of complex engineering assets. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 812–822. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30475-3_56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/TS 15926-7:2011. Industrial automation systems and integration — integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities — part 7: implementation methods for the integration of distributed systems: template methodologyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OASIS Product Life Cycle Support (PLCS) TC | OASIS. https://www.oasis-open.org
  22. 22.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition) (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification Version 3.0. United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336, 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ray, S.R., Jones, A.T.: Manufacturing interoperability. J. Intell. Manufact. 17, 681–688 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, D.: Enterprise interoperability framework. In: Proceedings of the Open Interop Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability, Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hunten, K.A., Feeney, A.B.: Business object models for industrial data standards. Presented at the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGilvray, D.: Executing Data Quality Projects: Ten Steps to Quality Data and Trusted Information (TM). Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (outside the US) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations