Designing engineers
Functional Reasoning in Design
IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications
What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them?
IEEE Intelligent Systems
Handbook on Ontologies (International Handbooks on Information Systems)
Handbook on Ontologies (International Handbooks on Information Systems)
Representing function: Relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing
Development of design methodology for upgradable products based on function–behavior–state modeling
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing
The model of roles within an ontology development tool: Hozo
Applied Ontology - Roles, an interdisciplinary perspective
Behavior of a Technical Artifact: An Ontological Perspective in Engineering
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (FOIS 2006)
The Attractiveness of Foundational Ontologies in Industry
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry
Characterizing Functions based on Ontological Models from an Engineering Point of View
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (FOIS 2010)
If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: Assessing three formalization strategies
Applied Ontology - The Ontology of Functions
B-Cube, behavioural modelling of technical artefacts
Computers in Industry
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper we present a formal characterization of the engineering concepts of behavior and function of technical artifacts. We capture the meanings that engineers attach to these concepts by formalizing, within the formal ontology DOLCE, the five meanings of artifact behavior and the two meanings of function that Chandrasekaran and Josephson identified in 2000 within the functional representation approach. We begin our formalization by reserving the term “behavior” of a technical artifact as “the specific way in which the artifact occurs in an event.” This general notion is characterized formally, and used to provide definitions of actual behaviors of artifacts, and the physically possible and physically impossible behaviors that rational agents believe that artifacts have. We also define several other notions, for example, input and output behaviors of artifacts, and then show that these ontologically characterized concepts give a general framework in which Chandrasekaran and Josephson's meanings of behavior can be explicitly formalized. Finally we show how Chandrasekaran and Josephson's two meanings of artifact functions, namely, device-centric and environment-centric functions, can be captured in DOLCE via the concepts of behavioral constraint and mode of deployment of an artifact. A more general goal of this work is to show that foundational ontologies are suited to the engineering domain: they can facilitate information sharing and exchange in the various engineering domains by providing concept structures and clarifications that make explicit and precise important engineering notions. The meanings of the terms “behavior” and “function” in domains like designing, redesigning, reverse engineering, product architecture, and engineering knowledge bases are often ambiguous or overloaded. Our results show that foundational ontologies can accommodate the variety of denotations these terms have and can explain their relationships.