In all types of communication, the ability to share information is often hindered because the meaning of information can be drastically affected by the context in which it is viewed and interpreted. This is especially true in manufacturing, because of the growing complexity of manufacturing information and the increasing need to exchange this information among various software applications. Different representations of the same information may be based on different assumptions about the world, and use differing concepts and terminology—and conversely, the same terms may be used in different contexts to mean different things. Often, the loosely defined natural-language definitions associated with the terms will be too ambiguous to make the differences evident, or will not provide enough information to resolve the differences. A solution to this problem is the use of taxonomies or ontologies of manufacturing concepts and terms, because ontologies provide a way to make explicit the semantics (i.e., the meaning) for the concepts used, rather than relying just on the syntax used to encode those concepts. Ontological techniques can be useful for giving unambiguous definitions of product and process capabilities and evolving designs and design requirements, unifying the differences in how knowledge is conceptualized across multiple product and process domains, and translating those definitions into the specialized representation languages of application systems. This paper gives an overview of current research and development on ontologies as it relates to mechanical engineering applications, along with examples of how ontologies can be used to facilitate the exchange of information among manufacturing applications.

1.
Gruber, T. R., 1993, “Toward Principles of the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing,” in International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, Padova, Italy.
2.
Lenat
,
D.
,
1995
, “
Cyc: A Large-scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure
,”
Commun. ACM
,
38
, pp.
33
38
.
3.
Enderton, H. B., 1972, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press, New York.
4.
Sowa, J. F., 2000, Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, California.
5.
Genesereth, M. R., and Fikes, R. E., 1992, Knowledge Interchange Format Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Technical Report, Logic Group, Stanford University, CA.
6.
Ciocoiu, M. and Nau. D. S., 2000, “Ontology-based Semantics,” in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Cohn, A. G., Giunchiglia, F., and Selman, B., eds., pp. 539–546, Breckenridge, Colorado, Morgan Kaufmann.
7.
Gruninger
,
M.
, and
Fox
,
M. S.
,
1998
, “
Enterprise Modelling
,”
AI Magazine
,
19
, pp.
109
121
.
8.
Gruninger, M., 1997, “Ontologies for Enterprise Engineering,” Enterprise Engineering and Integration: Building International Consensus.
9.
Gruninger, M., and Pinto, J., 1995, “A Theory of Complex Actions for Enterprise Modelling,” in AA AI Spring Symposium Series 1995: Extending Theories of Action: Formal Theory and Practical Applications, AAAI Press, pp. 71–79.
10.
Fadel, F., Fox, M. S., and Gruninger, M., 1994, “A Generic Enterprise Resource Ontology,” in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Enabling Technologies—Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises, West Virginia University, pp. 86–92.
11.
Tham, D., Fox, M. S., and Gruninger, 1994, “A Cost Ontology for Enterprise Modelling,” in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Enabling Technologies—Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises, West Virginia University, pp. 111–117.
12.
Kim
,
H.
,
Fox
,
M. S.
, and
Gruninger
,
M.
,
1999
, “
An Ontology for Quality Management: Enabling Quality Problem Identification and Tracing
,”
BT Technol. J.
,
17
, No.
4
, pp.
215
231
.
13.
Fox
,
M. S.
,
Barbuceanu
,
M.
, and
Gruninger
,
M.
,
1995
, “An Organization Ontology for Enterprise Modelling: Preliminary Concepts for Linking Structure and Behavior,”
Comput. Industry
,
29
, pp.
123
134
.
14.
Lin
,
J.
,
Fox
,
M. S.
, and
Bilgic
,
T.
,
1996
, “
A Requirements Ontology for Concurrent Engineering
,”
Conc. Eng.: Res. Appl.
,
4
, pp.
279
291
.
15.
Gruninger, M., Atefi, K., and Fox, M. S., 2000, “Ontologies to support process integration in enterprise engineering,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory.
16.
Clocksin, W., and Mellish, C., 1981, Programming in PROLOG, Springer-Verlag.
17.
Uschold
,
M.
,
King
,
M.
,
Moralee
,
S.
, and
Zorgios
,
Y.
,
1998
, “
The Enterprise Ontology
,”
Knowledge Eng. Rev.
,
13
, pp.
47
76
.
18.
Fillion, F., and Menzel, C., 1995, “An Ontology-based Environment for Enterprise Model Integration,” in IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological issues in Knowledge Sharing.
19.
Inc. Knowledge Based Systems, IDEF0 Overview. http://www.idef.com/idef0.html.
20.
Inc. Knowledge Based Systems, IDEF1x Overview. http://wwww.idef.com/idef1x.html.
21.
Lee
,
J.
,
Gruninger
,
Y. M.
,
Jin
,
T.
,
Malone
,
T.
,
Tate
,
A.
, and
Yost
,
G. A.
,
1998
, “
The pif Process Interchange Format and Framework
,”
Knowledge Eng. Rev.
,
2
, pp.
1
30
.
22.
Polyak, S. Lee, J. Gruninger, M., and Menzel, C., 1998, “Applying the Process Interchange Format (pif) to a Supply Chain Process Interoperability Scenario,” in European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, New York, pp. 247–253.
23.
Schlenoff, C., Knutilla, A., and Ray, S., 1996, Unified Process Specification Language: Requirements for Modeling Process,” Technical Report NISTIR 5910, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
24.
Gruninger, M., Schlenoff, C., and Knutilla, A., 1997, “Using Process Requirement as the Basis for the Creation and Evaluation of Process Ontologies for Enterprise Modeling,” ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin Special Issue on Enterprise Modelling, 18, No. 3.
25.
Schlenoff, C., Gruninger, M., and Ciocoiu, M., 1999, “The Essence of Process Specification,” submitted, by invitation, to the Special Issue on Modeling and Simulation of Manufacturing Systems for the Society for Computer Simulation International.
26.
Mayer, R. J., Menzel, C. P., Painter, M. K., de Witte, P. S., Blinn, T. and Perakath, B., 1995, Information Integration for Concurrent Engineering (IICE) IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report, Technical Report, Knowledge Based Systems Inc., KBSI-IICE-90-STR-01-065922-02.
27.
ILOG Scheduler 4.3 1998, Reference Manual, June.
28.
Schlenoff, C., Ciocoiu, M., Libes, D., and Gruninger, M. 1999, “Process Specification Language: Results of the First Pilot Implementation,” in Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE).
29.
McKay, K. N., and Moore, J. B., 1991, Intelligent Manufacturing management, State of the Art Scheduling Survey 06-23-91, Technical Report R-91-IMM-01, CAM-I (Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing International).
30.
Knowledge Based Systems Inc., 1995, Foundations for Product Realization Process Knowledge Sharing, Technical Report, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA contract No. 50-DKNB-7-90095.
31.
Ciocoiu, M., 1998, Translating IDEF3 to PSL, Technical Report, University of Maryland, Computer Science Technical Report, CS-TR-3950.
32.
Graham, P., 1969, ANSI Common Lisp, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
33.
W3C, Extensible Markup Language (XML), 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/.
34.
e-STEEL: the Steel Commerce Solution, http://www.e-steel.com/home.shtml.
35.
Workflow Management Coalition, http://www.aiim.org/wfmc/.
36.
Public Petroleum Data Model Association, http://www.ppdm.org/.
37.
Biztalk, http://www.biztalk.org/.
You do not currently have access to this content.