2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference 2007
DOI: 10.1109/aero.2007.352806
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Basic Concepts and Distinctions for an Aerospace Ontology of Functions, Entities and Problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Functions are represented as blocks with an applied <<Function>> stereotype. The functions are captured as names in the blocks, referencing the Aerospace Ontology 4 .…”
Section: B Modeling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Functions are represented as blocks with an applied <<Function>> stereotype. The functions are captured as names in the blocks, referencing the Aerospace Ontology 4 .…”
Section: B Modeling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…found. Among those works we can mention a few: [Arvor et al 2019], a research which focuses on the capacity of ontologies to represent both symbolic and numeric knowledge, to reason based on cognitive semantics and to share knowledge on the interpretation of remote sensing images; [Cox et al 2016], an ontology to characterize space objects according to a variety of parameters including their identifiers, design specifications, components, subsystems, capabilities, vulnerabilities, origins, missions, orbital elements, patterns of life, processes, operational statuses, and associated persons, organizations, or nations; [Malin and Throop 2007], a paper which paper describes a set of taxonomies for interpreting descriptions of aerospace entities, functions, properties and problems; [Blasch 2015], a paper which explores the concepts of ontologies for applications to aerospace avionics as motivated by the NextGen and Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) standards and [Verhagen and Curran 2011], a paper about the development of an ontology for the aerospace composite manufacturing domain.…”
Section: Some Considerations About Ontologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For more examples of singleton evaluations of one method on one project, see the proceedings of the annual symposium program 4 and the repository of NASA's software assurance research. 5 Several researchers offer detailed taxonomies of standard NASA faults [15,16], but do not address what tasks are most cost-effective at finding the faults. For example, Lutz reports studies on the most frequent kind of faults seen in deep-space NASA missions but does not fully address the issue of what V&V and IV&V tasks are best at removing faults [17].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 16 Sort order of IV&V tasks: top to bottom, best to worst. Tasks are only listed if both "cost to apply task" and "frequency of applying that task" data is available.…”
Section: Task Pruningmentioning
confidence: 99%