|
Welcome to the COE Discussion Forum!
|
|
|
|
To participate in the discussion forum, you must be logged in to the website. If you forget your login information, please contact COE Headquarters at coe@coe.org or (800) 263-2255.
If you are new to the COE Discussion Forum and would like to participate, please register.
|
|
|
The COE 2008 Fall Industry Workshops
|
| Experience two days of industry-focused education and hands-on training on the Dassault PLM solutions suite of products. All education featured at the workshop is developed by and for users of CATIA®, ENOVIA®, DELMIA® and SIMULIA®. |
| |
|
|
Automotive
Oct. 15-16
Troy, Michigan
|
Aerospace & Defense
Oct. 27-28
Wichita, Kansas
|
 |
|
| Forum Highlight: CATIA V6 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
COE-FORUM-USER
 |
| 06 Apr 2005 11:33 AM |
|
I would like to deal with KBE application. Many of you have made elaborations of the diverse usage of KBE in PLM, PDM, and ERP contexts. Never the less, most of the problems, I encounter at work today are "No where close to abstracts" and this is my problem.
If we understand to deal with "specific problem classes" via KBE, may be we all would be better equipped (knowledgeable) to handle large and more complex problems later? What do you think?
KBE is still new and emerging concept. We need to understand what we can do with KBE and how can we do those more efficiently and generically so that it is portable, and succinct. My KBE application does not become a maintenance nightmare – meaning it is not subject to frequent code changes.
DYNAMIC, GENERIC, GENERATIVE, HIGH-LEVEL, and DEMAND-DRIVEN are FIVE words that have greater meaning in KBE.
I believe, they (the FIVE) represent a set of characteristics (call it a set of enablers) for qualifying an application to be a true KBE application. There are many ways of building a KBE application. One can build an application using KTI/ICAD IDL language. Many of us --old timers have done that. One can do an application in VBA, many of us done that too. One can built an application in VB Scripts. Some of us have done the same using in KnowledgeWare Tools. Some of us had done it using PKT/GScript Language. Some of us have done using CATIA V5 Templates. In fact, I could submit to you there are many ways of doing (building a KBE application) even with our CATIA KnowledgeWare tools set (KWA, KWE, PKT and BKT).
Then, the real question is how should I build this application so that my resulting “KBE” application have (by inheritance) the above FIVE qualities?
That my application is dynamic. Rules reconfigure themselves or the outputs based on input changes.
That it (my application) is Generic.—many new, known or unknown cases can be derived from one model or a “just-one” code representation.
That it’s generative.-- new rule bodies (or models) are created automatically from the old ones (e.g. model templates) based on changes in input specifications.
That it’s high level. A small amount of KBE code (in the form of high-level instructions or language) produces significant results (manipulating a large number of objects)
That it’s demand-driven. System (knowledge-engine) knows the sequence in which rules become active and controls how those rules get fired. Thus, relieving the users (KEs) to worry about (program) or to control the so called “rule sequencing” themselves.
I would like to draw attentions of this elite group to shed some light on this.
Let us talk about this set of KBE-FIVE? Or SIX? Can we? What do you think?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 22 Apr 2005 10:31 AM |
|
Brian,
Good points. I really like your start of a descriptive overview. Each of those attributes will have operational issues that this forum can help address.
Speaking of the 'operational' side of things, there may be one more attribute that we need to add to the list that you started.
In brief, KBE, in my experience, requires thinking about computational states differently than is the norm. One task will involve characterizing what this difference might be, as it is an observable phenomenon.
Part of the difference is due the added roles required of computational systems as ‘knowledge’ rises in the abstraction hierarchy. These roles are judgmental in scope; that characteristic is something that we require of our decision makers but have found it extremely difficult to attain in the artificial.
Now, there is an ‘operational’ focus that can help limit some of the difficulties. However, any such limits have risks to go along with the paybacks. In my mind, we need to engineer from a perspective that accounts for what might be called ‘undecidability’ or something similar. Whatever the name, this concept is very much apropos in discussions about the future of KBE.
jms |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 22 Apr 2005 01:42 PM |
|
II agree with you. There is an added computational role the so called "KBE tools” should provide or at least be there -- when users are building a KBE application.
There is only so much -- users can do -- in any language in order for a KBE application to exhibit the above FIVE KBE characteristics. If the tools and the "KBE language" (which the tools incorporate) provide the above FIVE Characteristics, no doubt -- it is an added bonus on the part of users/KBE developers.
It would be much easier for a common developer (including novice ones) to build a “good” KBE application.
However, one can argue that even with the best KBE tools, one could create a "SPIDER NET" -- that does not exhibits the above FIVE KBE characteristics. It makes a lot of difference how the initial design problem were modeled or represented or expressed. For example, one can use "External Links" in CATIA V5 and create a “web of mesh” that could easily break, if one feature or part is replaced by others.
If you do not want to replace a feature that may be right thing to do. But, if you are interested in "plugging and playing" features with others, you may want to use a different strategy for "parameter linking".
In summary, I agree with you on computational role -- KBE language that enables an application to possess one or more of the above FIVE characteristics are always preferable, since in my views; it eases the burden on the part of KBE users/developers.
Brian Prasad
|
|
|
|
|
JMSWTLK
|
| 21 Aug 2005 09:14 PM |
|
This is a little belated, for which I apologize.
In the COE NewsNet for June 2005, Brian Prasad published an article titled "What Distinguishes KBE From Automation" in which he describes KBE and how it differs from Automation.
I will suggest that the FAQ include a pointer to Brian's great explanative article which ought to be the reference for many future discussions.
|
|
john.m.switlik@ieee.org
316-204-0758
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JMSwtlk |
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 13 Feb 2006 08:46 PM |
|
| GENERATIVE?????can u explain to me,how to create new one model using the input from bill of material @ spread sheet?what the steps? |
|
|
|
|
BPRASAD
|
| 16 Feb 2006 05:30 PM |
|
On the CATIA V5 Help Section, there is an example to link a design Table to a CATPart.
The title of the section is
"Creating a Design Table from a Pre-existing File"
Go to CATIA Help and search for the above or the phrase "Design Table". It is described therein what you are asking for. |
|
Brian Prasad
COE-DPC/KBE Chairperson |
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|