Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-01T18:38:37.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using a Design Ontology to Identify the Terms that Represent the Design Results Across Research Communities

Part of: Knowledge-based Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Maiara Rosa  and
Henrique Rozenfeld

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper is contextualized in a research project that aims to create a new paradigm to support the design process, substituting the sequential nature of design process models by a flexible structure. To implement this paradigm, we must identify the final and intermediate results of the design process, such as documents, models, artefacts, among others. However, design research is wide and multidisciplinary, resulting in non-uniformity of the terminology across research communities, what hinders the results identification by means of a literature review. This paper aims to identify the terms employed by different research communities to refer to the intermediate and final results of the design process, structuring synonym terms across research communities and establishing how those terms interrelate in the design ontology. Using literature review, the following terms were analysed: design objects, elements, deliverables, entities, information, components, data, and artefacts. The results provide a holistic view of how the terms are employed throughout research communities, supporting the creation of search strings and pointing out opportunities for improving the design ontology.

Keywords

Design processTerminologyOntologiesProduct modelling / modelsDesign ontology
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2647 - 2656
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Browning, T.R., Fricke, E. and Negele, H. (2006), “Key concepts in modeling product development processes”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 104–128.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988), “An ethnographic perspective on education”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 159–168.Google Scholar
Cleland-Huang, J., Zisman, A. and Gotel, O. (2012), “Software and systems traceability”, Software and Systems Traceability, Vol. 9781447122, pp. 1–491.Google Scholar
Conforto, E.C. and Amaral, D.C. (2015), “Agile project management and stage-gate model - A hybrid framework for technology-based companies”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 40, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (2001), Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Costa, D.G., Costa, J. and Rozenfeld, H. (2017), “A guide to investigating design process models context of use”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 2: Design, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Costa, D.G., Macul, V.C., Costa, J.M.H., Exner, K., Pförtner, A., Stark, R. and Rozenfeld, H. (2015), “Towards the next generation of design process models: a gap analysis of existing models”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 2: Design Theory and Research Methodology Design Processes, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Dinar, M., Shah, J., Langley, P., Hunt, G. and Campana, E. (2011), “A structure for representing problem formulation in design”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), Vol. 6, Copenhagen, pp. 392–401.Google Scholar
Ding, Y., Ceglarek, D. and Shi, J. (2002), “Design evaluation of multi-station assembly processes by using state space approach”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 408–418.Google Scholar
Ekanayake, E.M.N.K. and Kodituwakku, S.R. (2015), “Consistency checking of UML class and sequence diagrams”, 8th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing, UMEDIA 2015, IEEE, pp. 98–103.Google Scholar
Freisleben, D. and Vajna, S. (2002), “Dynamic project navigation - modelling, improving, and review of engineering processes”, Proceedings of DECTC'02 - ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Montreal, CA, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Gericke, K. and Blessing, L.T.M. (2011), “Comparisons of Design Methodologies and Process Models across disciplines: A literature review”, International Conference on Engineering Design, Kobenhavn, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K. and Veldhuis, J.W. (2011), “Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing”, Software & Systems Modeling, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Gorti, S.R., Gupta, A., Kim, G.J., Sriram, R.D. and Wong, A. (1998), “An object-oriented representation for product and design processes”, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 489–501.Google Scholar
Gregor, S. and Jones, D. (2007), “The anatomy of a design theory”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 312–335.Google Scholar
Haley, C.B., Laney, R., Moffett, J.D. and Nuseibeh, B. (2008), “Security requirements engineering: A framework for representation and analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 133–153.Google Scholar
Harutunian, V., Nordlund, M., Tate, D. and Suh, N. (1996), “Decision making and software tools for product development based on axiomatic design theory”, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 135–139.Google Scholar
Hollauer, C., Kattner, N. and Lindemann, U. (2017), “Towards a methodology to support the development of flexible company-specific engineering design processes”, PICMET 2016 - Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology Management For Social Innovation, Proceedings, pp. 2018–2030.Google Scholar
Issa, A.A. and AlAli, A.I. (2011), “Automated requirements engineering: use case patterns-driven approach”, IET Software, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 287.Google Scholar
Jin, Y. and Benami, O. (2010), “Creative patterns and stimulation in conceptual design”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Jones, W.T. (2004), “Toward a global parameterization for quilted CAD entities”, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J.S. (2015), “Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer London, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 253–275.Google Scholar
Kim, K.Y., Manley, D.G. and Yang, H. (2006), “Ontology-based assembly design and information sharing for collaborative product development”, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 1233–1250.Google Scholar
Kimita, K. and Shimomura, Y. (2012), “Design method for modular product- service system architecture”, International Design Conference - Design 2012, Dubrovnik, pp. 979–988.Google Scholar
Komoto, H. and Tomiyama, T. (2012), “A framework for computer-aided conceptual design and its application to system architecting of mechatronics products”, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 931–946.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, K. and Law, K.H. (1997), “A data management model for collaborative design in a CAD environment”, Engineering with Computers, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Liang, W.Y. and O'Grady, P. (1998), “Design with objects: An approach to object-oriented design”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 943–956.Google Scholar
Margolin, V. (2013), “Doctoral education in design: problems and prospects”, Design Issues, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 70–78.Google Scholar
Marinescu, C. (2011), “Are the classes that use exceptions defect prone?”, Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop and the 7th Annual ERCIM Workshop on Principles on Software Evolution and Software Evolution - IWPSE-EVOL ’11, Szeged, Hungary, pp. 56–60.Google Scholar
Markham, S.K. and Lee, H. (2013), “Product development and management association's 2012 comparative performance assessment study”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 408–429.Google Scholar
Monteiro, A., Mêda, P. and Poças Martins, J. (2014), “Framework for the coordinated application of two different integrated project delivery platforms”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 38, pp. 87–99.Google Scholar
Niles, I. and Pease, A. (2001), “Towards a standard upper ontology”, FOIS'01, Ogunquit (USA), pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
Noble, C.H. and Kumar, M. (2008), “Using product design strategically to create deeper consumer connections”, Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 441–450.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H. (2007), Engineering Design - A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed., Springer-Verlag London, London.Google Scholar
Pears, A. and Daniels, M. (2010), “Developing global teamwork skills: The runestone project”, 2010 IEEE Education Engineering Conference, EDUCON 2010, pp. 1051–1056.Google Scholar
Princeton University. (2010), “WordNet”, available at: http://wordnet.princeton.edu (accessed 20 August 2011).Google Scholar
Reussner, R.H., Schmidt, H.W. and Poernomo, I.H. (2003), “Reliability prediction for component-based software architectures”, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 241–252.Google Scholar
Ritola, T. and Coatanéa, E. (2013), “Interplay between offering, provider and customer in product-service systems design”, ICED13: 19th International Conference on Engineering Design, Seoul, Korea, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Rosenman, M.A. and Gero, J.S. (1996), “Modelling multiple views of design objects in a collaborative CAD environment”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 193–205.Google Scholar
Salomons, O.W., Van Houten, F.J.A.M. and Kals, H.J.J. (1993), “Review of research in feature-based design”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Sauthoff, B., Gembarski, P.C. and Lachmayer, R. (2016), “Maturity-model-based design of structural components”, International Design Conference - Design 2016, Dubrovnik, pp. 503–512.Google Scholar
Shimomura, Y., Nemoto, Y. and Kimita, K. (2015), “A method for analysing conceptual design process of product-service systems”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, CIRP, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 145–148.Google Scholar
Sim, S.K. and Duffy, A.H.B. (2003), “Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14, pp. 200–223.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., The MIT Press, Massachusetts, available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(97)82941-0Google Scholar
Štorga, M. (2005), “THE DESIGN ONTOLOGY Contribution to the Design Knowledge Exchange and Management by The Design Ontology – Contribution to the Design Knowledge”.Google Scholar
Štorga, M., Andreasen, M.M. and Marjanović, D. (2010), “The design ontology: Foundation for the design knowledge exchange and management”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 427–454.Google Scholar
Tang, A., Jin, Y. and Han, J. (2007), “A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 918–934.Google Scholar
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207–222.Google Scholar
Tuomi, I. (1999), “Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Vajna, S. (2005), “Workflow for design”, Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice, Springer-Verlag London Ltd, London, pp. 366–385.Google Scholar
Wacker, J.G. (2008), “A conceptual understanding of requirements for theory-building research: Guidelines for scientific theory building”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
Wittern, E., Schuster, N., Kuhlenkamp, J. and Tai, S. (2012), “Participatory service design through composed and coordinated service feature models”, International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 158–172.Google Scholar
Yang, Q.Z. and Zhang, Y. (2006), “Semantic interoperability in building design: Methods and tools”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1099–1112.Google Scholar
Zeng, Y. (2002), “Axiomatic theory of design modeling”, Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2009), “Design concept evaluation in product development using rough sets and grey relation analysis”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 7072–7079.Google Scholar