Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:18:36.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontological characterization of functions: Perspectives for capturing functions and modeling guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Yoshinobu Kitamura  and
Riichiro Mizoguchi
Yoshinobu Kitamura*
Affiliation:
Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
Riichiro Mizoguchi
Affiliation:
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi, Ishikawa, Japan
*
Reprint requests to: Yoshinobu Kitamura, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The authors have been involved in ontological modeling of function for over 15 years. As an instance of the revisionary approach discussed in Vermaas's position paper, we have proposed an ontological definition of function and a modeling framework based on it, which has been deployed in industry. In addition, as an instance of the overarching approach, we have proposed a reference ontology of function that explains some kinds, definitions, and practical expressions of functions. In this paper, we explain our methodology in an overarching approach based on perspectives for capturing functions. When one captures a function of an artifact, one focuses on a specific aspect of the artifact from a specific perspective. In this paper, we conceptualize such perspectives behind the reference ontology. In addition, based on our experiences in deployment in an industrial setting, we report some solutions, such as ontological modeling guidelines, for overcoming some of the difficulties faced in the practical functional modeling approach described in Eckert's position paper. Our findings suggest that such solutions will help engineers to describe consistent functional models compliant with a single definition of function.

Keywords

Engineering PracticeFunctionKnowledge Modeling and SharingOntology
Type
Response Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 259 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

REFERENCES

Arp, R., & Smith, B. (2008). Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. Proc. Bio-Ontologies Workshop (ISMB 2008), pp. 45–48, Toronto, July 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgo, S., Mizoguchi, R., & Smith, B. (Eds.) (2011). On the ontology of functions [special issue]. Applied Ontology 6(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16(3/4), 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72(20), 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kleer, J., & Brown, J.S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence 24, 7–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipert, R.R. (2006). The metaphysical grammar of “function” and the unification of artifactual and natural function. Proc. 15th Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology: Comparative Philosophy of Technical Artifacts and Biological Organisms. Altenberg, Austria: Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research.Google Scholar
Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: the practical challenges in using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 217–232 [this issue].Google Scholar
Erden, M.S., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T.J., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2002). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Proc. of Artificial Intelligence in Design '02, pp. 89–104. Dordecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (1992). Representation of design functions in experience-based design. Intelligent Computer Aided Design (Brown, D., Waldron, M., & Yoshikawa, H., Eds.), pp. 283–308. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (2013). One 30-year case study and 15 principles: implications of an artificial intelligence methodology for functional modeling. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 203–215 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13(2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I., Smith, B., Munn, K., Tsikolia, N., Elsner, K., Ernst, D., & Siebert, D. (2005). Functional anatomy: a taxonomic proposal. Acta Biotheoretica 53(3), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M., Fuse, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Deployment of an ontological framework of functional design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2006). An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Journal of Applied Ontology 1(3/4), 237–262.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2011). FOREST: an ontological modeling framework for product-related processes. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Engineering Design in Integrated Product Development (EDIProD 2011), pp. 39–49, Wroclaw, Poland, June 30–July 1.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). Some ontological distinctions of function based on the role concept. Proc. ASME 2009 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. (IDETC/CIE 2009), Paper No. DETC2009-87168, San Diego, CA, August 30–September 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2010). Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2010), pp. 301–314. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic identification of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics 16(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Segawa, S., Sasajima, M., Tarumi, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2008). Deep semantic mapping between functional taxonomies for interoperable semantic search. Proc. 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC 2008), LNCS, Vol. 5367, pp. 137–151. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Takafuji, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Toward a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. Proc. ASME 2007 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., IDETC/CIE 2007, Paper No. DETC2007-35373, Las Vegas, NV, September 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, R., & Kitamura, Y. (2009). A functional ontology of artifacts. Monist 92(3), 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, R., Sunagawa, E., Kozaki, K., & Kitamura, Y. (2007). The model of roles within an ontology development tool: Hozo. Applied Ontology 2(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Perlman, M. (2004). The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology. Monist 87(1), 3–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., Ikeda, M., & Mizoguchi, R. (1995). FBRL: a function and behavior representation language. Proc. 14th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, pp. 1830–1836. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 191–202 [this issue].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W. (2006). Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, A. (2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica 53, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed