Talk:Knowledge-based engineering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notice:
This was my first attempt at describing this topic. One main point is that we to address concerns of both PLM and CAx.
The former is a top-down business framework. The latter is bottom-up science and engineering.
There is overlap as would be expected.
COE has published a related article.
Contents |
[edit] ICAD
I am surprised that there is no mention of the ground breaking ICAD system in this history of KBE
[edit] Response to ICAD
Thank you for bringing this up. There is an indirect reference (See Also - A KBE System for the Design of Wind Tunnel Models using Reusable Knowledge Components).
This is my first pass through. Notice that I barely mention CATIA; it's mainly because COE has related pages that I could point to.
ICAD has been buried by Dassault. Do a search on ICAD on Google and see what you get?
Yes, ICAD ought to (will) feature heavily in the history. I'll be correcting that omission (skipped over it by intent, in order to get the larger picture out there). Someone please tell me, how ICAD can feature in the future (without divulging proprietary knowledge)?
ICAD is an archetype (so to speak -- more on this later). I put in a specific page for ICAD; this will allow the historic review that you suggest is necessary.
[edit] ++++++++++++
ICAD had some fundamental engineering knowledge management menthods of implementing the design intent in an intelligent way, which the current codes still need a long way to go
[edit] Response to ++++++++++++
Granted ICAD seemed to have 'something' (see Joel Orr's "Circle Game" in the Oct/Nov COE Newsnet) that exhibited 'power' in quantifiable terms. One reason for the KBE hiatus was that ICAD vanished (the facts concerning this ought to be described further). Since that time (circa 2002), there has been improvements in the Dassault tools. How and when this collection's capabilities can rival what was there with ICAD are open questions. Perhaps, to answer this question, we need to change some of the evaluation rules.
At the same time, though, we must remember that UG embedded Intent. It would be interesting to see how that set of tools has progressed and to what ends.
As a means to organize the appropriate data, I'm going to change 'KBE Theory' to 'KBE Futures/Theory' and use that section.
[edit] Model
A change to the 'See Also' section focused 'Model' on 'Model (abstract)' which I think is too strict. From the context of the 'KBE Futures/Theory' section, one can note the broad domain covered by KBE. This context allows for two major divisions of knowledge: science (which is acquisition) and engineering (all that mankind does - subsuming technology, too). Hence, we need pointers to both.
