Ontology for colaborative development of product service systems based on basic formal ontology

Abstract

the paper is one of the few attempts to develop a Product Service System (PSS) ontology aiming to facilitate Knowledge Management in collaborative PSS design, focusing upon machine industry. The PSS ontology includes concepts such as products, services, PSS, PSS lifecycle, process and stakeholders, including direct customers, consumers and their feedback. The context sensitivity approach is proposed to fully support the use of different tools for PSS development by various stakeholders. The context model includes both PSS ontology and a so-called usercentric ontology. The process to develop the ontologies is described. The approach to build the PSS ontology is based on the so-called Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). The foreseen applications of both ontologies in industrial practice of machine vendors and the expected benefits are being elaborated.

Enriching the functionally graded materials (FGM) ontology for digital manufacturing

“…Engineering Modeling Language Ontology (CAEMLOnto) [18], the Product Service System Ontology (PSSO) [19], the Part-Focused Manufacturing Process Ontology (PMPO) [20], the ontology of the skill modeling for digital factories [21] the Innovative Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing Ontology (ICAM) [22], the Additive Manufacturing Ontology (AMO) [23], the Interoperability and Integration Framework (IoIF) [24], the DILECO OWL Ontology for the application of aircraft ground structure testing [25], the Physics-based Simulation Ontology [26], the Reference Ontology for the Maintenance Management Domain (ROMAIN) [27], the Supply Chain Reference Ontology [28], and the Process-Centric Systems Engineering Reference Ontology [29].…”

A concept map to support the planning and evaluation of artifacts in the initial phases of PSS design

“…Third, developing such a system requires dealing with a meaningful amount of knowledge created during the process, which includes understanding customers, requirements, product and service technologies and behaviors, lifecycle perspectives, support systems, among others (Shen et al 2010;Medini and Boucher 2019). This knowledge is collaboratively exchanged among stakeholders with distinct backgrounds and skills, such as engineers, service designers, marketing, programmers, but also partners, suppliers, and customers (Zhu et al 2015;Hajimohammadi et al 2017;Correia et al 2018;Medini and Boucher 2019). Besides the quantity, there is a variety of knowledge manifested by the stakeholders through their domain-specific models and systems.…”

“…Besides the quantity, there is a variety of knowledge manifested by the stakeholders through their domain-specific models and systems. Therefore, a challenge of PSS design is the appropriate gathering and exchange of a meaningful amount of varied knowledge, ensuring its completeness, re-use, sharing (Correia et al 2018), and a unified perspective of the expected solution and its relevant information among all stakeholders (Hajimohammadi et al 2017). A well-accepted strategy for elucidating knowledge in PSS design, providing a common understanding among all stakeholders, is visualization through artifacts (Bertoni et al 2013;Wolfenstetter et al 2018;Medini and Boucher 2019).…”

“…Other authors use ontologies for similar purposes (Pagoropoulos et al 2014;Hajimohammadi et al 2017). Ontologies provide a common language to describe, communicate, manage and share knowledge (Vasantha et al 2015;Zhu et al 2017;Correia et al 2018). The difference between structuring a concept map or a formal ontology lies in their distinct complexity levels, but both characterize a given knowledge domain by structuring its concepts and relationships (Brilhante et al 2006).…”

“…Some authors are even more specific, covering only one or few PSS perspectives, such as service, and ignoring other dimensions or further relevant information due to the adopted focus [e.g., Kim et al (2009), Shen et al (2010)]. Other authors provide other perspectives of the PSS besides the object itself, such as its stakeholders, infrastructure, lifecycle, or further relevant information for its success [e.g., Hajimohammadi et al (2017), Correia et al (2018), Medini and Boucher (2019)]. All those papers have one common characteristic: because of their specific topics or approaches, they all provide an incomplete list of concepts and relationships regarding the relevant knowledge that must be created in the early phases of PSS design.…”