Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From concepts to consistent object specifications: Translation of a domain-oriented feature framework into practice

  • Regular Papers
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A steady increase in consumer demands, and severe constraints from both a somewhat damaged environment and newly installed government policies, require today’s product design and development to be faster and more efficient than ever before, yet utilizing even fewer resources. New holistic approaches, such as total product life cycle modeling which embraces all aspects of a product’s life cycle, are current attempts to solve these problems. Within the field of product design and modeling, feature technology has proved to be one very promising solution component. Owing to the tremendous increase in information technology, to transfer from low level data processing towards knowledge modeling and information processing is about to bring a change in almost every computerized application. From this viewpoint, current problems of both feature frameworks and feature systems are analyzed in respect to static and dynamic consistency breakdowns. The analysis ranges from early stages of designing (feature) concepts to final system implementation and application. For the first time, an integrated view is given on approaches, solutions and practical experience, with feature concepts and structures, providing both a feature framework and its implementation with sufficient system architecture and computational power to master a fair number of known consistency breakdowns, while providing for robust contexts for feature semantics and integrated models. Within today’s heavy use of information technology these are pre-requisites if the full potential of feature technology is to be successfully translated into practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wozny M, Pratt M, Poli C. Topics in feature-based design and manufacturing. InAdvances in Feature Based Manufacturing Shah J, Mantyla M, Nau D (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1994, pp.481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Merriam-Webster’s, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1996.

  3. Bidarra R, Bronsvoort W F. Semantic feature modeling.Computer-Aided Design, 2000, 32(3): 201–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mäntylä M. Introduction to Solid Modeling. Computer Science Press, Rockville, Maryland, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rossignac J R. Issues on feature-based editing and interrogation of solid models.Computer & Graphics, 1990, 14(2): 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pratt M J, Synthesis of an optimal approach to form feature modeling. InProc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, August, 1988, pp.263–274.

  7. Masuda H, Shimada K, Numao M, Kawabe S. A mathematical theory and applications of non-manifold geometric modeling. InPreprints International Symposium on Advanced Geometric Modelling for Engineering Applications, Berlin, Germany, November, 1989, pp.78–92.

  8. Capoyleas V, Chen X, Hoffmann C M. Generic naming in generative, constraint-based design.Computer-Aided Design, 1996, 28(1): 17–26.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kripac J A. A mechanism for persistently naming topological entities in history-based parametric solid models.Computer-Aided Design, 1997, 29(2): 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham J J, Dixon J R. Designing with features: The origin of features. InProc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, August, 1988, pp.237–243.

  11. Descotte Y, Latombe J C. GARI. An expert system for process planning. InSolid Modeling by Computers, Picket and Boyse (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Luby S C, Dixon J R, Simmons M K. Creating and using a features database.Computers in Mechanical Engineering, 1986, 5(3): 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hummel K E, Brooks S L. Symbolic representations of manufacturing features for an automated process planning systems. InProc. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California, 1986.

  14. Ostrowski M C. Feature-based Design Using Constructive Solid Geometry. Internal Report, General Electric Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, New York, March, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gossard D C, Zuffante R P, Sakurai H. Representing dimensions, tolerances and features in MCAE systems.IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 1988, 8(2): 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mäntylä M. Feature-Based Product Modeling for Process Planning. InProc. Second Toyota Conference on Organization of Eng. Knowledge for Product Modeling in Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, 1988.

  17. Rossignac J R, Borrel P, Nackman L R. Interactive design with sequences of parameterized transformations. Research Report RC 13740, IBM Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, May, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krause F-L, Bienert M, Vosgerau F H, Yaramanoglu N. Feature oriented system design for geometric modeling. InProc. Theory and Practice of Geometric Modeling, Tübingen, Germany, October, 1988.

  19. Pratt M J. A Hybrid feature-based modelling system. InPreprints International Symposium on Advanced Geometric Modelling for Engineering Applications, Berlin, Germany, November, 1989, pp.177–189.

  20. Shah J J, Rogers M T. Feature based modeling shell: Design and implementation. InProc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, July/August, 1989 pp.255–261.

  21. Requicha A A G, Chan S C. Representation of geometric features, tolerances and attributes in solid modelers based on constructive geometry.IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 1986, 2(3) 156–166.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fontana M, Giannini F, Meirana M. Free form feature taxonomy.Computer Graphics Forum, 1999, 18(3): 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vosniakos G. Investigation of feature-based shape modeling for mechanical parts with freeform surfaces.International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1999, 15(3): 188–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taura T, Nagasaka I, Yamagishi A. Application of evolutionary programming to shape design.Computer-Aided Design, 1998, 30(1): 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Au C K, Yuen M M F. A semantic feature language for sculptured object modeling.Computer-Aided Design, 2000, 32(1): 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gao S, Shah J J. Automatic recognition of interacting machining features based on minimal condition subgraph.Computer-Aided Design, 1998, 30(9): 727–739.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Perng D B, Chang C F. Resolving feature interactions in 3D part editing.Computer-Aided Design, 1997, 29(10): 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sormaz D N, Khoshnevis B. Modeling of manufacturing feature intersections for automated process planning.Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 2000, 19(1): 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sha K, Gurumoorthy B. Multiple feature intepretation across domains.Computers in Industry, 2000, 42(1): 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krause F-L, Stiehl Ch, Martini K. New applications for feature modeling. InProc Israel-Korea Bi-National Conference on New Themes in Computerized Geometrical Modeling, Tel Aviv, Israel, February, 1998, pp.1–9.

  31. Krause F-L, Kind Ch, Martini K. Application of feature technology in a disassembly-oriented information technology infrastructure. InProc. 4th CIRP International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, June, 1997, pp.345–355.

  32. Vieira A S. Consistency management in feature-based parametric design. InProc. ASME Design Engineering Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, August, 1995, pp.977–987.

  33. Dohmen M, de Kraker K J, Bronsvoort W F. Feature validation in a multiple-view modeling system. InProc. ASME Design Engineering Conference Irvine, California, August, 1996.

  34. Smyth M. Effectively given domains.Theoretical Computer Science, 1977, 5(3): 257–274.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Stoy S E. Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming Language Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mosses P D. Denotational semantics. InHandbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol B, van Leeuwen J (ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1990, pp.577–631.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scott D S. Domains for denotational semantics. InLecture Notes in Computer Science, Nielsen M, Schmidt E M (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, pp.577–613.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mussio P, Padula M, Protti M. Attributed conditional L-systems: A tool for image description. InProc. 9th International Joint Conference on Pattern Recognition, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1988, pp.607–609.

  39. Otto H E, Mandorli F, Cugini U, Kimura F. Domain-oriented semantics for feature modeling based on TAE structures using conditional attributed rewriting systems. InProceedings ASME International Design Engineering and Computers in Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September, 1994, pp.13–27.

  40. ACIS Geometric Modeler Programmers Reference. Spatial Technology Inc., Boulder, Colorado, 1999.

  41. Stroustrup B. The C++ Programming Language. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Steele G L. COMMON LISP: The Language. Digital Press, Hanover, Massachusetts, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hill I D. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could write computer programs in ordinary English — or would it?Computer Bulletin, 1972, 16: 306–312.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mandorli F, Otto H E, Cugini U, Kimura F. Semantic control in feature-based modeling.International Journal of CAD/CAM and Computer Graphics, 1997, 12(1): 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maes P. Computational reflection.Knowledge Engineering Review 1988, 3(1): 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Madany P W, Islam N, Kougiouris P,et al. Reification and reflection in C++: An operating systems perspective. Technical Report UIUCDCS-R-92-1736, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  47. McDermott D V. Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. InSIGART Newsletter, 57, April, 1976, Reprinted in Haugeland, 1981, pp.143–160.

  48. Gunter C A, Scott D S. Semantic domains. InHandbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol.B, van Leeuwen J (ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1990, pp.634–674.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Otto H E, Mandorli F, Germani M. Extension of feature contact zones towards assembly related applications. InProc. International Conference on Engineering Design, Munich, Germany, August, 1999, pp.1745–1748.

  50. Otto H E, Kimura F. Context-dependent identification of TAE structures used within feature-based CAD systems. InProc. JSPE 1995 Annual Conference, JSPE, Okayama, Japan, September, 1995.

  51. Otto H E, Kimura F, Mandorli F. Support of disassembly/reassembly evaluation within total life cycle modeling through feature neighborhoods. InProc. ASME International Design Engineering and Computers in Engineering Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, September, 1998.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CAD/CAM Research, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, 113-8656, Tokyo, Japan

    Harald E. Otto

Authors
  1. Harald E. Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald E. Otto.

Additional information

Harald E. Otto is currently active in research on product modeling and life cycle design at the University of Tokyo. He participated in as well as organized several national and international research projects in the field of formal language application, GUI design, CAD system development, feature modeling and SFF technology based rapid prototyping at different institutions in the European Union and Asia. He received his diploma in mathematics and information science from the University of Darmstadt, Germany and his Ph.D. degree from the University of Tokyo, Japan. He is an active member of the ACM, EJG, GI and JSPE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harald E., O. From concepts to consistent object specifications: Translation of a domain-oriented feature framework into practice. J. Comput. Sci. & Technol. 16, 208–230 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943200

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943200

Keywords

Search

Navigation