Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-7vssv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T03:25:35.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a scientific ontology based concept of function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

Yong Chen ,
Zhinan Zhang ,
Jian Huang  and
Youbai Xie
Yong Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Zhinan Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Jian Huang
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Youbai Xie
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
*
Reprint requests to: Yong Chen, Room 838, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 800, Dongchuan Road, Minhang District, Shanghai, 200240, China. E-mail: mechenyong@sjtu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Function is an ambiguous concept, whereas having explicit and precise concepts is critical for building a systematic science of engineering design. Based on Bunge's scientific ontology, this paper is devoted to developing an explicit and precise concept of function for design science. First, we attempt to clarify the concept of behavior, which is closely related to function and is also shown as an ambiguous concept in engineering. Second, the concept of action is imported from scientific ontology into design science. Third, a scientific ontology based concept of function is proposed, together with an ontology-based functional taxonomy. A case of a function definition of a civil aircraft type demonstrates that the proposed concept of function is more explicit and precise than previous ones, and it can lead to better functional design results.

Keywords

ActionBehaviorDesign ScienceFunctionScientific Ontology

Information

Type
Response Papers
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Functional Descriptions in Engineering , August 2013 , pp. 241 - 248
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bobrow, D.G. (1984). Qualitative reasoning about physical systems: an introduction. Artificial Intelligence 24(1–3), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy—Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M.I., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2000). Agent-based synthesis of electromechanical design configurations. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Lin, Z.Q., Feng, P.E., & Xie, Y.B. (2007). Understanding and representing functions for conceptual design. In Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Bocquet, J.C., Eds.), Paper No. 223. Paris: Design Society.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Liu, Z.L., & Xie, Y. (2012). A knowledge-based framework for creative conceptual design of multi-disciplinary systems. Computer-Aided Design 44, 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z.N., & Liu, Z.L. (2011). Towards a scientific function–behavior transformation model. Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design. Vol. 2: Design Theory and Research Methodology (Culley, S.J., Hicks, B.J., McAloone, T.C., Howard, T.J., & Reich, Y., Eds.), pp. 51–60. Copenhagen: Design Society.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., & Vermaas, P.E. (2005). John Gero's function–behavior–structure model of designing: a critical analysis. Research in Engineering Design 16, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle 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].CrossRefGoogle 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. (2004). The situated function–behavior–structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A.K. (2013). A 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
Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, function of complex systems: the structure, behavior and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 43, 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1996). Design Science. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J.K.S., & Stone, R.B. (2012). A computational approach to biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.). London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of Automobile Engineers Aerospace. (2010). Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP-4754A): Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems. Warrendale, PA: Author.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2001). Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.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
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (1993). Systematic Approach to the Development and Design of Technical Systems and Products, VDI 2221. Düsseldorf: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.Google 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