Semantic rules for capability matchmaking in the context of manufacturing system design and reconfiguration

Figures & data

Figure 1. Basic idea of capability matchmaking.

Figure 2. Information models used for capability matchmaking. (Modified from Järvenpää et al. (2019b) by adding the ontology namespace acronym to the brackets.).

Figure 3. Simplified view of the matchmaking ontology. (Modified from Järvenpää et al. (2019b) by adding namespace definition in front of the class and property names and reorganizing the elements to improve readability).

Figure 4. Matchmaking viewpoints and rules.

Figure 5. Capability matchmaking procedure on a high level.

Table

#1	SELECT ?capability
#2	WHERE {
#3	?deviceCombination rm:hasCalculatedCapability ?arg1.
#4	?deviceCombination rm:hasIndividualDeviceOrDeviceCombination)* ?device .
#5	?device rm:hasDeviceBlueprint ?blueprint .
#6	?blueprint rm:hasCapability ?capability .
#7	?capability a ?arg2 .
#8	}

Table

#1	CONSTRUCT {
#2	?this ?parameter ?value .
#3	}
#4	WHERE {
#5	BIND (:getPartCapability(?this, ?capability) AS ?result) .
#6	FILTER bound(?result) .
#7	BIND (?result AS ?resourceCapability) .
#8	?resourceCapability ?parameter ?value .
#9	}

Table

#1	CONSTRUCT {
#2	?this cm:payload ?payload .
#3	}
#4	WHERE {
#5	BIND (:getPartCapability(?this, cm:FingerGrasping) AS ?result) .
#6	FILTER bound(?result) .
#7	BIND (?result AS ?fingerGrasping) .
#8	?gripperDevice rm:hasCapability ?fingerGrasping .
#9	?gripperDevice rm:hasBasicResourceInformation ?info .
#10	?info cm:mass ?mass .
#11	?fingerGrasping cm:payload ?graspingPayload .
#12	BIND (:getPartCapability(?this, cm:Moving) AS ?result2).
#13	FILTER bound(?result2) .
#14	BIND (?result2 AS ?moving) .
#15	?moving cm:payload ?movingPayload .
#16	BIND ((?movingPayload – ?mass) AS ?alternative) .
#17	BIND (IF((?alternative > ?graspingPayload), ?graspingPayload, ?alternative) AS ?payload) .
#18	}

Table

#1	CONSTRUCT {
#2	?this:hasCapabilityMatch ?instance .
#3	}
#4	WHERE {
#5	?this a ?class .
#6	?capability (rdfs:subClassOf)+ ?class .
#7	?capability (rdfs:subClassOf)* cm:Capability .
#8	?instance a ?capability .
#9	}

Table

#1	ASK WHERE {
#2	?capability cm:torque_max ?max .
#3	OPTIONAL {
#4	?capability cm:torque_min ?min .
#5	} .
#6	OPTIONAL {
#7	?taxonomy pm:requiredTorque_max ?requiredMax .
#8	} .
#9	OPTIONAL {
#10	?taxonomy pm:requiredTorque_exact ?requiredExact .
#11	} .
#12	OPTIONAL {
#13	?taxonomy pm:requiredTorque_min ?requiredMin .
#14	} .
#15	FILTER ((!bound(?requiredExact)) || (?requiredExact ≤ ?max)) .
#16	FILTER (((!bound(?requiredExact)) || (!bound(?min))) || (?requiredExact ≥ ?min)) .
#17	FILTER (((!bound(?requiredMax)) || (!bound(?min))) || (?requiredMax ≥ ?min)) .
#18	FILTER ((!bound(?requiredMin)) || (?requiredMin ≤ ?max)) .
#19	}

Table

#1	CONSTRUCT {
#2	?this mmo:canBeImplementedWith ?instance .
#3	}
#4	WHERE {
#5	?this pm:screwType ?requiredType .
#6	?this pm:screwDiameter ?diameter .
#7	?this mmo:hasCapabilityMatch ?instance .
#8	?instance cm:screwType ?instanceType .
#9	?instance cm:screwSize ?size .
#10	FILTER (?requiredType = ?instanceType) .
#11	FILTER (?diameter = ?size) .
#12	FILTER mmo:torqueMatch(?instance, ?this) .
#13	}

Figure 6. Overall software architecture of the capability matchmaking system, modified from Järvenpää et al. (2019b).

Figure 7. Functionality of the CQL and matchmaking process module during capability matchmaking.

Figure 8. Example of matchmaking request.

Figure 9. Example of matchmaking result.

Figure 10. Example PRD modelled with Protégé ontology editor.

Figure 11. Sample instances in the resource pool.

Figure 12. Internal reasoning procedure of the matchmaking system.

Figure 13. Created resource combination for screwing and its inferred capability parameters.

Figure 14. Created resource combination for PickAndPlace and its inferred capability parameters.

Table 1. Inputs (resource pools) and results of the matchmaking tests

				Resource pools used for matchmaking (search space)				Matchmaking test results
	Resource Pool	Device Blueprints	Individual Devices	Device Combinations	Capabilities	Layout Fixed?	Created Resource Combinations	Combined Capabilities	Found Matches	Process Steps without Matches	Processing Time (mm:ss)
1	ResPool 1	67	1	0	127	N/A	44	76	24	1	12:33
2	SysLayout 1	25	26	9	55	T	0	26	13	5	00:58
3	SysLayout 1	25	26	9	55	F	18	49	27	1	01:58
4	SysLayout 1 + ResPool 1	67	26	9	127	F	44	87	31	1	15:12

Järvenpää, E., N. Siltala, O. Hylli, and M. Lanz. 2019b. “Implementation of Capability Matchmaking Software Facilitating Faster Production System Design and Reconfiguration Planning.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 53: 261–270. October. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.10.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar