Tipos de actividades en la práctica del ejercicio físico

There is a rapidly growing body of literature in the area of PPR modelling. This section focuses on the methods used to create these models, how and where they have been used and the respective shortcomings to highlight both the technical and knowledge gaps. Rampersad (Rampersad, 1994) introduced an integrated PPR model that integrated the PPR domains in 1994. He decomposed the domains and showed how and where different areas should be linked. A key insight of Rampersad was to link the product domain to the assembly system as well as to the process resulting in the formation of the integrated assembly model illustrated in Figure 2-16. This was with a view to realise concurrent engineering. However, at the time of publishing, there was a lack of computing power, engineering tools and industrial consensus on the approach, therefore this remained a conceptual work.

43

Figure 2-16 Integrated assembly model (Rampersad, 1994)

Delamer et al. (Delamer and Lastra, 2006) described how ontological models supported by semantic web services could be utilised to rapidly reconfigure manufacturing systems. However, the work did not embed the ontology with an ability to recognise functional aspects of processes and equipment, preventing automatic selection and invocation of manufacturing processes. Further, there was limited description of the product ontology and no explicit identification of how the respective ontologies were linked.

Lohse (Lohse, 2006) on the other hand did provide insight with regards to the mappings within and across domains using a function-behaviour-structure framework in the ONTOMAS framework (Figure 2-17). However, Lohse’s approach to domain integration detracted from Rampersad’s in that it utilised the Process domain as the “middle man” i.e. there was no explicit link between the Product and Resource domain (although a “port” concept did permit the representation of interrelations between the Product domain and the Resource domain (Lohse et al., 2005, Lohse et al., 2004)) This had the consequence of the inability to query system suitability with respect to product and vice versa, preventing the full exploitation of the presented ontological models.

44

Figure 2-17 High level view of the ONTOMAS ontology describing inter-domain links (Lohse, 2006)

The work of Lanz (Lanz, 2010) aligns well with the work presented in this research paper as it addressed the same problems: i) to give meaning to the large amount of data and information that exist in organisations, and ii) to have decision support systems that can be trusted by designers and engineers. Lanz therefore created a PPR ontology and showed how the respective domains are linked (Figure 2-18). The work demonstrated how data from engineering tools could be imported into the ontology, although the reverse was not described. In addition, there was limited description as to how the data extracted and linked from the engineering tools can be exploited and manipulated.

45

Figure 2-18 Product-Process-System Model (Lanz, 2010)

The concept of “feature” was used by (Hasan et al., 2014) to carry information concerning a product through process planning and the engineering of shop floor devices such as grippers to map to skills. Hasan et al. then extended this work in Hasan et al. (Hasan et al., 2016b, Hasan et al., 2016a, Hasan and Wikander, 2017 , Hasan and Wikander, 2016) to directly extract product assembly feature data from SolidWorks through an application programming interface (API) using a boundary representation methodology.

MASON (MAnufacturing Semantics ONtology) was proposed by Lemaignan et al. which demonstrated automated cost estimation and semantic-aware multi-agent system for manufacturing (Lemaignan et al., 2006). However, being self-described as an upper- ontology, it was too abstract to be used as a practical engineering tool and is similar in scope to the work of Ahmad et al. (Ahmad et al., 2015a). The main concepts and object properties of the MASON ontology are illustrated in Figure 2-19.

46

Figure 2-19 Main classes and object properties of the MASON ontology (Lemaignan et al., 2006)

Panetto et al. present another manufacturing related ontology called ONTOPDM (ONTOlogy for Product Data Management) which is an approach for facilitating system interoperability within manufacturing environments (Panetto et al., 2012). To manage heterogeneous data sets, Panetto et al. utilised existing standards for product technical data (IEC 10303) and Enterprise Resource Planning/Manufacturing Execution System data (ISO 62264). However, the research focused primarily on the Product Domain and how information could be exchanged with reduced semantic uncertainty. As a result the other product realisation domains were less well defined. In addition, by creating an ontology that linked to a set of standards, Panetto et al. concluded that it was necessary to further extend the ontology to include other standardisation initiatives. This poses the risk of a large, monolithic ontology that may be difficult to maintain.

A manufacturing systems engineering (MSE) ontology was presented by Lin and Shahbaz in (Lin et al., 2004). The work formed part of a broader, extended enterprise system called the EEMSE moderator (the acronym was not elaborated in the work). A moderator was defined in the work as “an intelligent support application designed to facilitate and improve concurrent engineering design by enhancing the degree of awareness, cooperation, and coordination among engineering team members”. The research noted two key issues when considering a multi-enterprise, complex, engineering projects. Firstly, design change information needs to be effectively communicated to relevant stakeholders and secondly what is perceived to be important aspects of a given design by a given stakeholder need to be expressed explicitly. The work culminated in the development of a large, complex

47

ontology with the top level abstract classes illustrated in Figure 2-20. This monolithic, non- modularised model hindered reuse and thus the authors of that paper do not have appeared to extended the work as discussed in the concluding section of the paper which was to support more powerful query and inference.

Figure 2-20 Top-level abstract classes from the MSE ontology (Lin et al., 2004)

Recently, Chhim et al. (Chhim et al., 2017) presented a product design and manufacturing process based ontology to support manufacturing knowledge reuse. They identified that a lack of granular mappings between product design (the Product Domain) and the manufacturing process (Process Domain) did not exist, and hypothesised that this was one of the reasons for the lack of industrial uptake of ontologies. The authors focused on reusing the knowledge generated from DFMEA (design failure modes and effects analysis) and PFMEA (process failure modes and effects analysis) processes. The full design and manufacturing ontology is presented in Figure 2-21 and it was used to identify how a given product component could fail and what detection controls had been used in the past using a SPARQL query. Although the research identified the lack of granular mapping in existing works, examination of Figure 2-21 reveals a lack of mapping at the lowest levels of DFMEA (left branch) and PFMEA (right branch). In order to identify relationships, complex queries would need to be written. However, this could be addressed through SWRL rules that could automate low level mappings and thus simplifying queries.

48

Figure 2-21 Full design and manufacturing ontology from (Chhim et al., 2017)

The CPM (Core Product Model) (see Figure 2-22) in conjunction with the OAM (Open Assembly Model) (see Figure 2-23) both developed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) form basic “beyond geometry”-level product models that were designed to exist at a level of abstraction that allows them to be capable of capturing common engineering and design information (Rachuri et al., 2006, Fenves et al., 2008). However, these models are in a similar vein to Panetto et al., focussed on the Product Domain with limited consideration of the other domains. The OAM uses a data structure adopted from the STEP (Standard for Exchange of Product data) standard (ISO 10303). STEP is represented by Application Protocols (APs), the most common of which are AP203 and AP214 for the exchange of geometrical information i.e. CAD data, and AP239 for product life-cycle support. Originally STEP was developed within the EXPRESS language, however due to its lack of formal semantics, an OWL-DL implementation of STEP was created and named OntoSTEP (Krima et al., 2009).

49

Figure 2-22 The Core Product Model (Rachuri et al., 2006)

Figure 2-23 The Open Assembly Model ((Rachuri et al., 2006)

Usman et al. (Usman et al., 2011, Usman et al., 2013) and Chungoora et al. (Chungoora et al., 2013) worked to formalise product and manufacturing concepts in the MCCO

50

(Manufacturing Core Concepts Ontology) (see Figure 2-24). The aim of the work was to provide an ontological foundation for sharing knowledge across domains. In a similar vein to Panetto et al., the work utilised ISO standards to support in the selection of relevant concepts. A key contribution was the development of a Feature concept that facilitated integration. However, there was a lack of modularity in the ontology and the resource concepts did not decompose down to the level of states preventing granular mapping.

Figure 2-24 Lightweight representation of the Manufacturing Core Concepts Ontology (Usman, 2012)

Within the Process Domain, a commonly cited modelling standard is PSL (Process Specification Language) (see Figure 2-25). The basic concepts represented within the PSL ontology are “Activity”, “Occurrence”, and “Successor”. These concepts together with axiomisation of primitive process concepts provides a rich set of semantically constrained terminologies for describing process knowledge. Although PSL provides a holistic set of capabilities for the Process Domain including process planning, production planning, process simulation, and business process re-engineering (Bock and Gruninger, 2005, Grüninger and Kopena, 2005) it has seen limited development and use. This is largely attributed to a lack of tools and that, in industrial settings, the activities of the Process domain are executed in an ad hoc fashion (Lanz, 2010). The Framework Programme 6 project, PABADIS’PROMISE (Pabadis’Promise, 2006), resulted in the formation of the

51

P2 model and the P2 ontology. This ontology is holistic as it models all the PPR domains and in a machine understandable way by using RDF. In this work, conversion and transformation of data is executed semi-automatically. Borgo et al. (Borgo and Leitão, 2007) define and develop a core ontology for manufacturing. The work utilised an established foundation ontology, DOLCE (Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering) to improve system consistency. The work of Borgo et al. in conjunction with (Leitao, 2004) created the ADACOR (ADAptive holonic Control aRchitecture for distributed manufacturing control) ontology (see Figure 2-26). This ontology was expressed in an object-oriented frame-based manner and focused on modelling processes and resources with a view to realising changes within the domain of holonic manufacturing systems.

52

Figure 2-26 Manufacturing Ontology in the ADACOR Architecture (Borgo and Leitão, 2007)