2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.10.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantic Web for manufacturing, trends and open issues

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Conforme demandado por Ramos (2015), Krogstiea e Anderson (2012), Iwaya, Rosso Junior e Hounsell (2013), Hiekata e Yamato (2014), Kretschmer et al (2016) e Wahidin et al (2016), há necessidade de representar melhor os dados de fabricação e montagem para que estes sejam aproveitados futuramente durante novos projetos. Sem uma ferramenta de auxílio, os registros de casos anteriores ficam a mercê da lembrança dos profissionais, e muitas vezes desperdiçados.…”
Section: Representação Do Conhecimento Da Fabricação Ou Montagemunclassified
“…Conforme demandado por Ramos (2015), Krogstiea e Anderson (2012), Iwaya, Rosso Junior e Hounsell (2013), Hiekata e Yamato (2014), Kretschmer et al (2016) e Wahidin et al (2016), há necessidade de representar melhor os dados de fabricação e montagem para que estes sejam aproveitados futuramente durante novos projetos. Sem uma ferramenta de auxílio, os registros de casos anteriores ficam a mercê da lembrança dos profissionais, e muitas vezes desperdiçados.…”
Section: Representação Do Conhecimento Da Fabricação Ou Montagemunclassified
“…Thus, it comes as no surprise that the application of OWL ontologies in the representation of product information (including tolerance information) is gaining importance and popularity within the academia [81][82][83][84][85]. However, the OWL ontology-based model is probably not an efficient representation model for tolerance information as a whole, because OWL ontology has drawbacks in the aspects of degree of automation, time complexity, additional work, and negation in the model [80].…”
Section: Ontology-based Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ontologies are made of at least three elements: 1) classes (domain concepts); 2) relations (distinctive sorts of parallel relationship between concepts); and 3) instances (real world phenomenon) (David Sánchez, 2010). Most researchers agree on classifying ontologies based on different generality levels and conceptualization (Borst, 1997;Maalel et al, 2012;Ramos, 2015;Studer et al, 1998;Van Heijst et al, 1997;Zhang et al, 2004;. This resulted to the four categories of ontologies discussed in this survey, which are application ontology, domain ontology, generic ontology and representation ontology.…”
Section: Ontologymentioning
confidence: 99%