Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:35:19.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of semantic features in free-form objects reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2015

Milan Trifunovic ,
Milos Stojkovic ,
Miroslav Trajanovic ,
Miodrag Manic ,
Dragan Misic  and
Nikola Vitkovic
Milan Trifunovic*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
Milos Stojkovic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
Miroslav Trajanovic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
Miodrag Manic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
Dragan Misic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
Nikola Vitkovic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva, Nis, Serbia
*
Reprint requests to: Milan Trifunovic, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis, Aleksandra Medvedeva 14, 18000 Nis, Serbia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges associated with design and digital reconstruction of free forms comes from uniqueness and unrepeatability of these shapes. During digital reconstruction of these forms, the designer has to choose the right set of geometric features and then compose them in a way that will enable the most accurate reconstruction of the geometry. While doing this, the designer primarily relies on personal experience gained through work with free-form objects of similar geometry. In our opinion, the analysis of free-form objects geometry should rely upon semantic interpretation of their geometric and other features, and the greatest challenge of automation of digital reconstruction and free-form object design in general is closely related to automation of semantic interpretation of geometric and other free-form object features. In this paper, a case of chest bone implant digital reconstruction is presented, where a new semantic model called the active semantic model was used for modeling the meaning of geometric elements, that is, the semantic features of a free-form object. The active semantic model and its analogy-based reasoning algorithms have shown themselves as applicable for the automation of semantic interpretation of the unique, unrepeatable, and unpredictable forms of chest bone. Moreover, this semantic model showed the potential to help automate selecting and composing of geometric features for efficient digital reconstruction of the geometry of free forms.

Keywords

Active Semantic ModelArtificial IntelligenceComputer-Aided DesignDesign CognitionDesign Decision MakingGeometry ModelingKnowledge Engineering
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 44 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R., & Bower, G.H. (1973). Human Associative Memory. Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Batet, M., Sanchez, D., & Valls, A. (2011). An ontology-based measure to compute semantic similarity in biomedicine. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 44(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begum, S., Ahmed, M.U., Funk, P., Xiong, N., & Scheele, B.V. (2009). A case-based decision support system for individual stress diagnosis using fuzzy similarity matching. Computational Intelligence 25(3), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, R., Kolodner, J., & Plaza, E. (2006). Representation in case-based reasoning. Knowledge Engineering Review 20(3), 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodirsky, M., & Dalmau, V. (2006). Datalog and constraint satisfaction with infinite templates. Proc. 23rd Annual Symp. Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2006, Vol. 3884, pp. 646–659. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbonell, J.G. (1986). Derivational analogy: a theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach (Michalski, R.S., Carbonell, J.G., & Mitchell, T.M., Eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 371–392. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Hernandez, N.V., & Wood, K.L. (2011). Computer-based design synthesis research: an overview. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 11(2), 021003–021010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasegaran, S.K., Ramani, K., Sriram, R.D., Horvath, I., Bernard, A., Harik, R.F., & Gao, W. (2013). The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems. Computer-Aided Design 45(2), 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, P.-C., Lin, J.-J., & Dzan, W.-Y. (2012). Forecasting of manufacturing cost in mobile phone products by case-based reasoning and artificial neural network models. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 23(3), 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, C.B., & Pinfold, M. (2001). The application of a knowledge based engineering approach to the rapid design and analysis of an automotive structure. Advances in Engineering Software 32(12), 903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenouard, R., Granvilliers, L., & Sebastian, P. (2009). Search heuristics for constraint-aided embodiment design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheutet, V. (2007). 2D semantic sketcher for car aesthetic design. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Integrated Design and Production Engineering, Rabat, Morocco, October 22–24.Google Scholar
Cheutet, V., Catalano, C.E., Giannini, F., Monti, M., Falcidieno, B., & Leon, J. C (2007). Semantic-based operators to support car sketching. Journal of Engineering Design 18(5), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., & LaRocca, G. (2007). Knowledge-based techniques for developing engineering applications in the 21st century. Proc. 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conf. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Corallo, A., Laubacher, R., Margherita, A., & Turrisi, G. (2009). Enhancing product development through knowledge-based engineering (KBE): a case study in the aerospace industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20(8), 1070–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordi, V., Lombardi, P., Martelli, M., & Mascardi, V. (2005). An ontology-based similarity between sets of concepts. Proc. Workshop dagli Oggetti agli Agenti, WOA 2005, pp. 16–21. Bologna, Italy: Pitagora Editrice.Google Scholar
Deutch, J.A., & Deutch, D. (1963). Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review 70(1), 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science 19(2), 141–205.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert 12(3), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Y., Hu, J., & Peng, Y. (2012). A CBR system for injection mould design based on ontology: a case study. Computer-Aided Design 44(6), 496–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R.P. (1989). Computational approaches to analogical reasoning: a comparative analysis. Artificial Intelligence 39(1), 39–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieu, L.C., Sloten, J.V., Hung, L.T., Khanh, L., Soe, S., Zlatov, N., Phuoc, L.T., & Trung, P.D. (2010). Medical reverse engineering applications and methods. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Innovations, Recent Trends and Challenges in Mechatronics, Mechanical Engineering and New High-Tech Products Development, Bucharest, Romania, September 23–24.Google Scholar
Jabrouni, H., Kamsu-Foguem, B., Geneste, L., & Vaysse, C. (2011). Continuous improvement through knowledge-guided analysis in experience feedback. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24(8), 1419–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabrouni, H., Kamsu-Foguem, B., Geneste, L., & Vaysse, C. (2013). Analysis reuse exploiting taxonomical information and belief assignment in industrial problem solving. Computers in Industry 64(8), 1035–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1988). Analogy—from a unified perspective. In Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, and Philosophy (Helman, D.H., Ed.), Vol. 197, pp. 65–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J.L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 6(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulon, J., Mynors, D.J., & Broomhead, P. (2006). A knowledge-based engineering design tool for metal forging. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 177(1–3), 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Rocca, G. (2012). Knowledge based engineering: between AI and CAD. Review of a language based technology to support engineering design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 26(2), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Rocca, G., & Van Tooren, M.J.L. (2007). Enabling distributed multi-disciplinary design of complex products: a knowledge based engineering approach. Journal of Design Research 5(3), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, A., Tsui, E., & Lee, W.B. (2009). An ontology-based similarity measurement for problem-based case reasoning. Expert Systems With Applications 36(3), 6574–6579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negny, S., Riesco, H., & Le Lann, J.M. (2010). Effective retrieval and new indexing method for case based reasoning: application in chemical process design. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 23(6), 880–894.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review 75(6), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passone, S., Chung, P.W.H., & Nassehi, V. (2006). Incorporating domain-specific knowledge into a genetic algorithm to implement case-based reasoning adaptation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(3), 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernot, J.P., Falcidieno, B., Giannini, F., & Leon, J.C. (2008). Incorporating free-form features in aesthetic and engineering product design: state-of-the-art report. Computers in Industry 59(6), 626–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piegl, L.A. (2006). Knowledge-guided NURBS: principles and architecture. Computer-Aided Design & Applications 3(6), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Policastro, C.A., Carvalho, A.C.P.L.F., & Delbem, A.C.B. (2006). Automatic knowledge learning and case adaptation with a hybrid committee approach. Journal of Applied Logic 4(1), 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesbeck, C.K., & Schank, R.C. (1989). Inside Case-Based Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roldan, E., Neagny, S., Le Lann, J.M., & Cortes, G. (2010). Constraint satisfaction problem for case-based reasoning adaptation: application in process design. Proc. 20th European Symp. Computer Aided Process Engineering, ESCAPE20, pp. 397–402. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero Bejarano, J.C., Coudert, T., Vareilles, E., Geneste, L., Aldanondo, M., & Abeille, J. (2014). Case-based reasoning and system design: an integrated approach based on ontology and preference modeling. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 28(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, B., & Keane, M.T. (1998). Adaptation-guided retrieval: questioning the similarity assumption in reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 102(2), 249–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J.F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. New York: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Sqalli, M.H., & Freuder, E.C. (1998). Integration of CSP and CBR to compensate for incompleteness and incorrectness of models. Proc. AAAI-98 Spring Symp. Multimodal Reasoning. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Stojkovic, M. (2011). Analysis of the manufacturability parameters based on semantic structures of the digital product model. PhD Thesis. University of Nis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Stojkovic, M., Manic, M., & Trajanovic, M. (2005). Knowledge-embedded template concept. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Systems 34(1), 71–80.Google Scholar
Stojkovic, M., Manic, M., Trajanovic, M., & Korunovic, N. (2007). Semantic structures in the product data model. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Product Lifecycle Management. Geneva: Inderscience Enterprises Limited.Google Scholar
Stojkovic, M., Manic, M., Trifunovic, M., & Misic, D. (2011). Semantic categorization of data by determining the similarities of associations of the semantic network. E-Society Journal Research and Applications 2(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
Stojkovic, M., Milovanovic, J., Vitkovic, N., Trajanovic, M., Grujovic, N., Milivojevic, V., et al. (2010). Reverse modeling and solid free-form fabrication of sternum implant. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 33(3), 243–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, M. (2001). Managing Engineering Knowledge—MOKA: Methodology for Knowledge Based Engineering Applications. London: Professional Engineering.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T. (2007). Intelligent computer-aided design systems: past 20 years and future 20 years. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21(1), 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trifunovic, M., Stojkovic, M., Trajanovic, M., Misic, D., & Manic, M. (2013). Interpreting the meaning of geometric features based on the similarities between associations of semantic network. Facta Universitatis Series: Mechanical Engineering 11(2), 181–192.Google Scholar
Trifunovic, M., Stojkovic, M., Trajanovic, M., Misic, D., & Manic, M. (2014). Approach in realization of analogy-based reasoning in semantic network. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Information Society and Technology, ICIST 2014, pp. 192–197. Belgrade, Serbia: Society for Information Systems and Computer Networks. Accessed at http://www.yuinfo.org/icist2014/Proceedings/ICIST_2014_Proceedings.PDFGoogle Scholar
Van der Laan, A.H., Curran, R., Van Tooren, M.J.L., & Ritchie, C. (2006). Integration of friction stir welding into a multidisciplinary aerospace design framework. Aeronautical Journal 110(1113), 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vareilles, E., Aldanondo, M., Codet de Boisse, A., Coudert, T., Gaborit, P, & Geneste, L. (2012). How to take into account general and contextual knowledge for interactive aiding design: towards the coupling of CSP and CBR approaches. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vareilles, E., Aldanondo, M., & Gaborit, P. (2007). Evaluation and design: a knowledge-based approach. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 20(7), 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, W.J.C., Bermell-Garcia, P., van Dijk, R.E.C., & Curran, R. (2012). A critical review of knowledge-based engineering: an identification of research challenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics 26(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, I. (1999). Case-based reasoning is a methodology not a technology. Knowledge-Based Systems 12(5–6), 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J., Dougherty, B., Schmidt, D.C., & Benavides, D. (2009). Automated reasoning for multi-step software product-line configuration problems. Proc. Software Product Line Conf. 2009, SPLC 2009, pp. 11–20. San Francisco, CA, August 24–28, 2009.Google Scholar