The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 191-202

  Vermaas, Pieter E ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ambiguity of functional descriptions; Conceptual analysis; Engineering design methods; Functions

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY OF FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS; CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS; DESIGN METHODOLOGY; ENGINEERING DESIGN METHODS; FAMILY RESEMBLANCE; POINT OF VIEWS; POSITION PAPERS; SIDE BY SIDES;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; FUNCTIONS; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING;

ENGINEERING;

EID: 84878425518     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060413000206     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Albers, A., Matthiesen, S., Thau, S., & Alink, T. (2008). Support of design engineering activity through C&CM: temporal decomposition of design problems. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 295-305. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
2. Arp, R., & Smith, B. (2008). Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. Nature Precedings, 1941.1. Accessed at http://precedings. nature.com/documents/1941/version/1/html
3. Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2009). A formal ontological perspective on behaviors and functions of technical artifacts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23, 3-21.
4. Borgo, S., Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Formalizations of functions within the DOLCE ontology. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., Mandorli, F., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 113-126. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
5. Bracewell, R.H., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1996). Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation: Schemebuilder. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 333-346.
6. Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DECT2005-8501, Long Beach, CA, September 24-28.
7. Burek, P., Herre, H., & Loebe, F. (2009). Ontological analysis of functional decomposition. Proc. Conf. New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools, and Techniques, pp. 428-439. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
8. Carrara, M., Garbacz, P., & Vermaas, P.E. (2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology 6, 141-163.
9. Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting twoviews of function inmechanical design. Proc. Workshop on Functional Modelling and Teleological Reasoning, 15th AAAI NationalConf. Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, July 26-30.
10. Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (1996). Special issue: representing functionality in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 251-253.
11. Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22, 493-517.
12. Chandrasekaran, B. (2005). Representing function: relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19, 65-74.
13. Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16, 162-177.
14. Chittaro, L., & Kumar, A.N. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12, 331-336.
15. Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31, 311-344.
16. De Kleer, J., & Brown, J.S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence 24, 7-83.
17. Deng, Y.M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 16, 343-362.
18. 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].
19. 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.
20. Far, B.H., & Elamy, A.H. (2005). Functional reasoning theories: problems and perspectives. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19, 75-88.
21. Ferguson, E.S. (1992). Engineering and the Mind's Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26-36.
23. Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25, 373-391.
24. Gero, J.S., Tham, K.W., & Lee, H.S. (1992). Behaviour: a link between function and structure in design. In Intelligent Computer-Aided Design (Brown, D.C., Waldron, M.B., & Yoshikawa, H., Eds.), pp. 193-225. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25. Goel, A.K. (2013). One 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].
26. Goel, A.K., & Bhatta, S.R. (2004). Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18, 85-94.
27. Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13, 65-82.
28. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.
29. Keuneke, A.M. (1991). Device representation: the significance of functional knowledge. IEEE Expert 6(2), 22-25.
30. Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology 1, 237-262.
31. Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15, 327-351.
32. Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2010). Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Galton, A., & Mizoguchi, R., Eds.), pp. 301-314. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
33. Kitamura, Y., Takafuji, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. Proc. IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DETC2007-35373, Las Vegas, NV, September 4-7.
34. Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259-283.
35. Modarres, M., & Cheon, S.W. (1999). Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree-success tree technique and functional primitives. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 64, 181-200.
36. Okubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. Proc. ICED, pp. 154.1-154.12, Paris, August 28-31.
37. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed.). London: Springer.
38. Planck, M. (1970). The unity of the physical world-picture. In Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics (Toulmin, S., Ed.), pp. 1-27. New York: Harper & Row.
39. Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). SAPPhIRE: an approach to analysis and synthesis. eProc ICED, pp. 2.417-2.428, Palo Alto, CA, August 24-27.
40. Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359-370.
41. Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principle of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeller. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 275-288.
43. Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1995). FBS modeling: modeling scheme of function for conceptual design. Proc. Working Papers of the 9th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pp. 271-278, Amsterdam, May 16-19, 1995.
44. Van Eck, D. (2009). On relating functional modeling approaches: abstracting functional models from behavioral models. eProc ICED, pp. 2.89-2.100, Palo Alto, CA, August 24-27, 2009.
45. Van Eck, D. (2011). Incommensurability and rationality in engineering design: the case of functional decomposition. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 15(2), 118-136.
46. Vermaas, P.E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. eProc ICED, pp. 2.113-2.124, Palo Alto, CA, August 24-27.
47. Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical functions: towards accepting different engineering meanings with one overall account. Proc. TMCE Symp. (Horváth, I., Mandorli, F., & Ruzák, Z., Eds.), pp. 183-194. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
48. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.