Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:40:12.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cascading Forgetting in Product Development Challenges and Evaluation

Part of: Knowledge-based Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Patricia Kügler ,
Claudia Schon ,
Benjamin Schleich ,
Steffen Staab  and
Sandro Wartzack
Patricia Kügler*
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg;
Claudia Schon
Affiliation:
University of Koblenz-Landau
Benjamin Schleich
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg;
Steffen Staab
Affiliation:
University of Koblenz-Landau
Sandro Wartzack
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg;
*
Contact: Kügler, Patricia, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Engineering Design, Germanykuegler@mfk.fau.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Vast amounts of information and knowledge is produced and stored within product design projects. Especially for reuse and adaptation there exists no suitable method for product designers to handle this information overload. Due to this, the selection of relevant information in a specific development situation is time-consuming and inefficient. To tackle this issue, the novel approach Intentional Forgetting (IF) is applied for product design, which aims to support reuse and adaptation by reducing the vast amount of information to the relevant. Within this contribution an IF-operator called Cascading Forgetting is introduced and evaluated, which was implemented for forgetting related information elements in ontology knowledge bases. For the evaluation the development process of a test-rig for studying friction and wear behaviour of the cam/tappet contact in combustion engines is analysed. Due to the interdisciplinary task of the evaluation and the characteristics of semantic model, challenges are discussed. In conclusion, the focus of the evaluation is to consider how reliable the Cascading Forgetting works and how intuitive ontology-based representations appear to engineers.

Keywords

Intentional ForgettingOntologiesKnowledge managementSemantic data processing
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2527 - 2536
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. (1985), “On the logic of theory change. Partial meet contraction and revision functions”, The journal of symbolic logic, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 510–530. http://doi.org/10.2307/2274239.Google Scholar
Baader, F. (2010), The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511711787.Google Scholar
Baxter, D., Gao, J., Case, K., Harding, J., Young, B., Cochrane, S. and Dani, S. (2007), “An engineering design knowledge reuse methodology using process modelling”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37–48. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0028-8.Google Scholar
Camarillo, A., Ríos, J. and Althoff, K.-D. (2018), “Knowledge-based multi-agent system for manufacturing problem solving process in production plants”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 47, pp. 115–127. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.04.002.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1992), “Belief revision. An introduction”, In Gärdenfors, P. (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–28. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511526664.001.Google Scholar
Gearon, P., Passant, A. and Polleres, A. (2013), SPARQL 1.1 Update. [online] W3C, Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-update-20130321/ (accessed 12 November 2018).Google Scholar
Gruber, T.R. (1993), “A translation approach to portable ontology specifications”, Knowledge Acquisition, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 199–220. http://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, T.J., Krishnamurty, S. and Grosse, I.R. (2018), “A Knowledge-Based Method for Innovative Design for Additive Manufacturing Supported by Modular Ontologies”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 21009. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039455.Google Scholar
Harris, S., Seaborne, A. and Prud'hommeaux, E. (2013), SPARQL 1.1 query language. [online] W3C, Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/ (accessed 12 November 2018).Google Scholar
Horridge, M. and Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2012), “OWL 2 Web Ontology Language”. Manchester Syntax (Second Edition), W3C Working Group Note. [online] W3C, Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-owl2-manchester-syntax-20121211/ (accessed 19 February 2018).Google Scholar
Jackson, T.W. and Farzaneh, P. (2012), “Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 523–532. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0028-8.Google Scholar
Kestel, P., Luft, T., Schon, C., Kügler, P., Bayer, T., Schleich, B. and Wartzack, S. (2017), “Konzept zur zielgerichteten, ontologiebasierten Wiederverwendung von Produktmodellen”. Design for X, Bamberg, 04.-05. Oktober 2017, TuTech, Hamburg, pp. 241–252.Google Scholar
Kügler, P., Kestel, P., Schon, C., Marian, M., Schleich, B., Staab, S. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “Ontology-based approach for the use of Intentional Forgetting in product development”. 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 1595–1606. http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0402.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Zhou, X., Wang, W.M., Huang, G., Tian, Z. and Huang, S. (2018), “An ontology-based product design framework for manufacturability verification and knowledge reuse”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 26 No. 1, p. 139. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2099-2.Google Scholar
Marian, M., Tremmel, S. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “Microtextured surfaces in higher loaded rolling-sliding EHL line-contacts”, Tribology International, Vol. 127, pp. 420–432. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2018.06.024.Google Scholar
Markus, L.M. (2001), “Toward a theory of knowledge reuse. Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success”, Journal of management information systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57–93. http://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045671.Google Scholar
Probst, G., Raub, S. and Deussen, A. (2002), Kompetenz-Management: Wie Individuen und Organisationen Kompetenz entwickeln, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Rude, S. (1998), Wissensbasiertes Konstruieren, Shaker, Herzogenrath.Google Scholar
Schon, C. and Staab, S. (2017), “Towards SPARQL instance-level Update in the Presence of OWL-DL TBoxes”. Joint Ontology Workshop, Bozen-Bolzano, CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Schon, C., Staab, S., Kügler, P., Kestel, P., Schleich, B. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “Metaproperty-guided deletion from the instance-level of a knowledge base”. 21st International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Nancy, 12.-16. 11.2018, Springer, Cham, pp. 407–423. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03667-6_26.Google Scholar
Seel, N.M. (2012), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Springer US, Boston. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6.Google Scholar
Shenk, D. (2007), Data smog: Surviving the information glut, Rev.ed., HarperCollins, New York.Google Scholar