A generic approach to the mapping problems in cooperative design
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

A Generic Approach to the Mapping Problems in Cooperative Design PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Presentation at ICE 2001 Bremen, Germany, June 2001. A Generic Approach to the Mapping Problems in Cooperative Design. U. Wagner, Dr. P. Katranuschkov, Prof. Dr. R. J. Scherer TU Dresden, Germany. Overview. The Problem Domain The Model Mapping Approach The Mapping System Mapping language

Download Presentation

A Generic Approach to the Mapping Problems in Cooperative Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


A generic approach to the mapping problems in cooperative design

Presentation at ICE 2001Bremen, Germany, June 2001

A Generic Approach to the Mapping Problems in Cooperative Design

U. Wagner, Dr. P. Katranuschkov, Prof. Dr. R. J. SchererTU Dresden, Germany


Overview

Overview

  • The Problem Domain

  • The Model Mapping Approach

  • The Mapping System

    • Mapping language

    • Mapping language parser

    • Implementation of the mapping engine

    • Example

  • Conclusion


The problem domain

The Problem Domain

  • There are several differences b/n Building Construction and other industries :

    • Lower profits, lower IT investment

    • Lack of large key organisations as technology drivers

    • Complex supply and communication chains

  • Therefore:Concurrent engineering & cooperative design have to deal withcomplex model transformations in a distributed non homogeneous model world

  • Such transformations may be needed e.g. for:

    • Data exchange between major CAD-Applications

    • Generation of views (presentation, documentation, pre- and post-processing)

    • Coordinated change management

    • Extracting of management information for control and monitoring etc.


The problem domain1

The Problem Domain

Architect

Architect

CivilEngineer

StructuralEngineer

CivilEngineer

StructuralEngineer

SHAREDPROJECTMODEL

BuildingOwner

HVACEngineer

BuildingOwner

HVACEngineer

FacilitiesManager

ControlsEngineer

FacilitiesManager

ControlsEngineer

Constr.Manager

Constr.Manager

The IAI Vision of Interoperability

Not fully sufficient

Not fully sufficient are also all known database integration approaches


The model mapping approach

The Model Mapping Approach

Background:

  • Underlying product modelling framework (IFC)

  • Non fully harmonised domain / application models

  • Distributed, a-priori non coordinated data

  • Distributed C/S architecture with underlying shared data repository

    Note:

    Mapping is an alternative to full harmonisation/integration methods

    But: Model mapping supports and does not contradict to integration!

    Principal approach:

     Consolidation of the project data only at discrete co-ordination points


The model mapping approach1

The Model Mapping Approach

process phase

coordination point

T0

T1

TN

design changes

Arch. Model

A1

MAPPING

MAPPING

models are semantically equivalent

models are diff.

T1

T0

design changes

Struct. Model

S1local

Merging

Matching

Arch. Model

A0

S1map(A1)

Struct. Model

S1merged

Struct. Model

S 0map(A0)


The mapping system

The Mapping System

  • A mapping language - CSML

  • A generic parser - MaLaPaG

  • Explicit public operations enabling distributed C/S realisations

  • A set of implementation methods comprising the interoperability engine(server-side object-oriented methods based on set theory)


Characteristics of csml

Characteristics of CSML

  • Declarative language

  • Mapping of two (full or partial) models

  • Context-free grammar

  • Recursively specified  the rules are directly realizable

  • Predefined mapping patterns for typical problemson class, instance and attribute level

  • Better suited to real-time distributed systems than EXPRESS-X

  • Less suited for model evolution and model migration

  • Still under development …


The generic parser malapag

The Generic Parser (MaLaPaG)

  • Basically, instead of developing parsing rules for all language constructs, the language itself is used as input in the parser

  • More difficult to realize than a static parser

  • But: applicable for a class of similar languages

  • Easy to modify by changes in the language specification

  • Static vs. Generic Parser:

  • Static Parser:

  • statically integrated rules

  • designed for a specific language

  • low development effort

  • high maintenance effort

  • Generic Parser:

  • rules are externally stored

  • suitable for different languages

  • high development effort

  • low maintenance effort


Hashing the rule map

Hashing the Rule Map


Implementation of the mapping engine

Implementation of the Mapping Engine

  • Input data sets:

    • The source and target schemas in EXPRESS

    • The source model data

    • The CSML specification providing the mapping rules for the translation of the source model data into the target model data

  • Processing:

    • Parsing of the EXPRESS schemas

    • Parsing of the CSML specification

    • Recursive generation of the source & target data sets

    • Compressing the target data by eliminating redundancies

  • Output data set:

    • The target model data e.g. in the form of a STEP exchange file or as a XML document (see ifcXML)


Example

Example

Mapping Specification:

(MAP local_model FROM shared_model

CLASSES

( MAP CLASS circ FROM circle

ATTRIBUTES

(SAME centre)

(MAKE diameter FROM radius APPLY

(LAMBDA (X) (* X 2.0))))

DEPENDENT-CLASSES

(MAP CLASS point FROM point

ATTRIBUTES

(SAME x_coord y_coord z_coord AS x y z)

)

)


Parser tree for the example

Parser Tree for the Example

MAP : local_model

FROM : shared_model

DEPENDENT-

CLASSES

CLASSES

MAP CLASS: circ

MAP CLASS: point

FROM : circle

FROM : point

ATTRIBUTES

ATTRIBUTES

SAME : x_coord y_coord z_coord

MAKE : diameter

SAME: centre

AS x y z

FROM : radius

APPLY : (LAMBDA (X)

(* X 2.0))

Schema mapping

Class mapping

Leaf nodesAttr. mappings


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • The modular mapping system provides greatest freedom for independent, parallel design work

  • The integration of a generic parser provides a high level of flexibility enabling easy re-adjustment of the environment

  • As a whole, the presented approach fulfils major interoperability requirements of a concurrent engineering environment in building design


  • Login