Product design and diagnosis are, today, worlds apart. Despite strong areas of overlap at the ontological level, traditional design process theory and practice does not recognize diagnosis as a part of the modeling process chain; neither do diagnosis knowledge engineering processes reference design modeling tasks as a source of knowledge acquisition. This paper presents the DAEDALUS knowledge engineering framework as a methodology for integrating design and diagnosis tasks, models, and modeling environments around a common Domain Ontology and Product Models Library. The approach organizes domain knowledge around the execution of a set of tasks in an enterprise product engineering task workflow. Each task employs a Task Application which uses a customized subset of the Domain Ontology—the Task Ontology—to construct a graphical Product Model. The Ontology is used to populate the models with relevant concepts (variables) and relations (relationships), thus serving as a concept dictionary-style mechanism for knowledge sharing and reuse across the different Task Applications. For inferencing, each task employs a local Problem-solving Method (PSM), and a Model-PSM Mapping, which operate on the local Product Model to produce reasoning outcomes. The use of a common Domain Ontology across tasks and models facilitates semantic consistency of variables and relations in constructing Bayesian networks for design and diagnosis. The approach is motivated by inefficiencies encountered in cleanly exchanging and integrating design FMEA and diagnosis models. Demonstration software under development is intended to illustrate how the DAEDALUS framework can be applied to knowledge sharing and exchange between Bayesian network-based design FMEA and diagnosis modeling tasks. Anticipated limitations of the DAEDALUS methodology are discussed, as is its relationship to Tomiyama's Knowledge Intensive Engineering Framework (KIEF). DAEDALUS is grounded in formal knowledge engineering principles and methodologies established during the past decade. Finally, the framework is presented as one possible approach for improved integration of generalized design and diagnostic modeling and knowledge exchange.
[1]
Luca Console,et al.
Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis
,
1992
.
[2]
B. H. Lee.
Using Bayes belief networks in industrial FMEA modeling and analysis
,
2001,
Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2001 Proceedings. International Symposium on Product Quality and Integrity (Cat. No.01CH37179).
[3]
Guus Schreiber,et al.
Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS Methodology
,
1999
.
[4]
Michael R. Genesereth,et al.
The Use of Design Descriptions in Automated Diagnosis
,
1984,
Artif. Intell..
[5]
Tetsuo Tomiyama,et al.
An Application of the Knowledge Intensive Engineering Framework to Building Foundation Design
,
1998,
Knowledge Intensive CAD.
[6]
Tetsuo Tomiyama,et al.
Case studies on ontology for the knowledge intensive engineering framework
,
1997
.
[7]
Lucienne Blessing,et al.
A process-based approach to computer-supported engineering design
,
1994
.
[8]
Robert Paasch,et al.
Reliability centered prediction technique for diagnostic modeling and improvement
,
1997
.
[9]
Tetsuo Tomiyama,et al.
Knowledge Intensive Computer Aided Design: Past, Present and Future
,
1998,
Knowledge Intensive CAD.
[10]
Gio Wiederhold,et al.
An Algebra for Ontology Composition
,
1994
.
[11]
Rudi Studer,et al.
Knowledge Engineering: Survey and Future Directions
,
1999,
XPS.
[12]
Sampath Srinivas,et al.
A Probabilistic Approach to Hierarchical Model-based Diagnosis
,
1994,
UAI.
[13]
J. B. Bowles,et al.
The new SAE FMECA standard
,
1998,
Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 1998 Proceedings. International Symposium on Product Quality and Integrity.