Support of Manufacture Enterprises Collaboration Through the Development of a Reference Ontology: A Contribution in Metrological Domain

  • Carlos A. Costa
  • João P. Mendonça
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 7)


Nowadays, manufacturing environment is populated with computational information files and records with implicit knowledge, which integration has becoming a major problem to seamless computational integration. Moreover, most of these systems are heterogeneous, thus problems of interoperability are frequent and any collaborative environment becomes easily compromised. Ontologies constitute the set of concepts, axioms, and relationships that describes a domain of interest, contributing to harmonize the information flow within computational systems. The distributed and heterogeneous nature of the organizations, in particular networked enterprises, led to the development of different ontologies for the same or overlapping areas, resulting in non-interoperability. This has become the basis for research methodologies to support a reference ontology, contributing to the standardization and development of ontologies within enterprises and virtual network, providing interoperability properties to intelligent systems. This paper exposes how the MENTOR methodology assisted the development and use of a reference ontology in the field of metrology, contributing to manufacturing teams collaboration and systems’ integration. The aim is to maintain the different ontologies of each partner, providing networked enterprises with coherent interaction and unambiguous communication. The case study in the field of metrology demonstrates the proposed methodology benefits introduced at collaborative manufacturing level.


Ontologies Metrology Measuring systems Intelligent manufacturing Semantic harmonization 


  1. 1.
    VDI 2206. (2004). Design methodology for mechatronic systems.Berlin: Beuth Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sarraipa, J., Silva, J., Jardim-Goncalves, R., & Monteiro, A. (2008). MENTOR—a methodology for enterprise reference ontology development. In 2008 4th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Systems.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pereira, P. H. & Hocken, R. J. (2006). Characterization and compensation of dynamic errors of a scanning coordinate measuring machine. Precision Engineering, 30, 85–95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Abran, A., & Sellami, A. (2002). Initial modelling of the measurement concepts in the ISO vocabulary of terms in metrology. In Proceedings of IWSM2002, Magdeburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Requicha, A. A. G., & Chan, S. C. (1986). Representation of geometric features, tolerances, and attributes in solid models based on constructive geometry. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation RA-2, 3, 156–166.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner, J. U. (1990). Relative positioning of parts in assembly using mathematical programming. Computer-Aided Design, 22(7), 394–400.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng, S. C. (1996). A dimensional inspection planning activity model. Journal of Engineering Design and Automation, 2(4), 253–267 (Special issue on Tolerance and Metrology for Precision Manufacturing).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsai, J. C., Cutkosky, & M. R. (1997). Representation and reasoning of geometric tolerances in design. Cambridge Journals, 11(04), 325–341.
  10. 10.
    Hong, Y. S., & Chang, T. -C. (2002). A comprehensive review of tolerancing research. International Journal of Production Research, 40(11), 2425–2460.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao, X., Pasupathy, T. K., & Wilhelm R. (2006). Modeling and representation of geometric tolerances information in integrated measurement processes. Journal Computers in Industry, 57(4), 319–330.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 14598:2001. (2001). Software engineering—product evaluation. Genova, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 9126:2001. (2001). Software engineering—product quality. Genova, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Azuma, M. (2001). SQuaRE: The next generation of the ISO/IEC 9126 and 14598 International Standards series on software product quality. In Proceedings of European Software Control and Metrics (ESCOM), London, England.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 25000:2005. (2001). Software engineering—software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—guide to SQuaRE. Genova, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, H. M. (1999). Representing and reasoning about quality using enterprise models, PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. Canada: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    García, F., Bertoa, M. F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piatinni, M., & Genero, M. (2005). Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement. Information and Software Technology, 48, 631–644. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    García, F., Bertoa, M. F., Calero, C., Vallecillo, A., Ruiz, F., Piatinni, M., & Genero, M. (2008). Efective use of ontologies in software measurement. The knowledge engineering review, Vol. 00:0, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drejer, A. (2003). Gudmundsson, Agnar Exploring the concept of multiple product development via an action research project. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(3), 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silva, João P. M. A., Jardim-Goncalves, R., Monteiro, A. C., & Steiger-Garcao, A. (2004). Make the most of interoperability along PLC stages: A framework based on multilevel integration. DETC2004-57733, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jardim-Goncalves, R., Sarraipa, J., Agostinho, C., & Panetto, H. (2009). Knowledge framework for intelligent manufacturing systems. International Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 12(3), 281–293.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fernandez, M., Gomez-Perez, A., & Juristo, N. (1997). METHONTOLOGY: From ontological art towards ontological engineering. In Symposium on Ontological Engineering of AAAI (pp. 33–40). Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stumme, G., & Madche, A. (2001). FCA-Merge: Bottom-up merging of ontologies. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’01) (pp. 225–230). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2003). The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6), 983-1024.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D. M., & Steve, G. (1999). An overview of the ONIONS project: Applying ontologies to the integration of medical terminologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 31, 183–220.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uschold, M., & King, M. (1995). Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In Proceedings IJCAI-95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nicola, A., et al. (2005). Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA) (pp. 655–664). Denmark, LNCS no. 3588, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CT2M—DEMUniversidade do MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations