Global Product Development 2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-15973-2_44
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Framework to Support Semantic Interoperability in Product Design and Manufacture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
41
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• Extended CLIF (ECLIF) (ECLIF Reference, 2010), the flavor of CLIF used to structure ontologies in this paper, is able to express manufacturing process semantics more directly and is more efficient in execution than the alternative rule languages above (more details are available in Chungoora, 2010). PAL and ECLIF enable integrity constraints to be specified but SWRL does not.…”
Section: Why Common Logic Is Neededmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• Extended CLIF (ECLIF) (ECLIF Reference, 2010), the flavor of CLIF used to structure ontologies in this paper, is able to express manufacturing process semantics more directly and is more efficient in execution than the alternative rule languages above (more details are available in Chungoora, 2010). PAL and ECLIF enable integrity constraints to be specified but SWRL does not.…”
Section: Why Common Logic Is Neededmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neither representation is able to capture ternary relations or ontological functions (Chungoora, 2010). The need for these constructs within the manufacturing domain is demonstrated by the example manufacturing ontology (section 5 "Applying the Method to a Manufacturing Ontology").…”
Section: Why Common Logic Is Neededmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method of ensuring information sharing can be problematic in a number of ways since, e.g., multiple information viewpoints are required by design and manufacturing engineers [10,11]. Furthermore, engineers generally tend to have their own preferred terms that are confined to their specific problem domains and as such, alternative representations and definitions of concepts are inevitable [6].…”
Section: Traditional Approaches To Information Sharing In Plmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, heavyweight ontologies, i.e. knowledge-based models, consist of both lightweight structures as well as formal axioms that support the definition of the semantics of terms used for computer-based knowledge representation [4,6]. Therefore, heavyweight (i.e., expressive) ontologies are preferred for ensuring greater confidence behind the meaning of formalised knowledge.…”
Section: Lightweight V/s Heavyweight Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation