# Modeling Manufacturing Resources: An Ontological Approach

Emilio Sanfilippo, Sergio Benavent, Stefano Borgo, Nicola Guarino, Nicola
Troquard, Fernando F. Romero, Pedro Rosado, Lorenzo Solano, Farouk
Belkadi, Alain Bernard

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Emilio Sanfilippo, Sergio Benavent, Stefano Borgo, Nicola Guarino, Nicola Troquard, et al.. Modeling Manufacturing Resources: An Ontological Approach. 15th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Jul 2018, Turin, Italy. pp.304-313, 10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_28 .
hal-01997174

HAL Id: hal-01997174

https://hal.science/hal-01997174

Submitted on 21 Mar 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Modeling Manufacturing Resources:
An Ontological Approach

Emilio M. Sanfilippo¹*, Sergio Benavent⁴, Stefano Borgo²,
Nicola Guarino², Nicolas Troquard³
Fernando Romero⁴, Pedro Rosado⁴,
Lorenzo Solano⁵, Farouk Belkadi¹, and Alain Bernard¹

¹ECN, Laboratory of Digital Sciences of Nantes, UMR CNRS 6004, France
emilio.sanfilippo@ls2n.fr

²Laboratory of Applied Ontology ISTC-CNR, Trento, Italy

³Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

⁴Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain

⁵Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

**Abstract.** Resource management is at the core of different manufacturing tasks, which need to be seamlessly integrated to optimize production in manufacturing environments. The development of knowledge-based systems led to the use of ontologies to systematically organize data. Unfortunately, ontologies for resource knowledge representation lack maturity and often rely on context-dependent modeling choices. As a result, the notion of manufacturing resource is treated in disparate, non-homogeneous ways at the expenses of communication and application systems interoperability. The purpose of the paper is to lay down a conceptual framework on manufacturing resources based on ontology engineering principles. By the end of the paper we will see how different approaches can be harmonized with the proposed approach

**Keywords:** Manufacturing Resource, Ontology, Process Planning

# 1 Introduction

Management of manufacturing resources is of primary concern for manufacturing enterprises. Resources have indeed to be managed for various purposes like process or resource planning, resource scheduling, and work improvement study, just to mention a few tasks. As a consequence, enterprises require models to handle resource information in a uniform and transparent manner to smooth data exchange across the actors involved in the manufacturing chain.

Various data modeling standards, conceptual models, and ontologies have been proposed over the years for this goal. In particular, the use of the latter is increasing in application domains that require heterogeneous data to be consistently organized and exchanged while preserving their original meaning. Examples are Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) systems [1], but also emerging paradigms like Cyber Physical Production Systems (CPPS) [2], Smart-Sensitive-Sustainable (S3) Manufacturing [3], and Cloud Manufacturing [4].

Several information models addressing such domains have been developed, each one with its own specific view and application context. Consequently, various and not well-aligned modeling frameworks co-exist, a fact that complicates the efficient interoperation of organizations and information systems [5]. This situation has stimulated the creation of the international effort called *Industrial Ontologies Foundry* (IOF)<fnref n="1" /> aimed at the design of a library of open-source ontologies to facilitate the interaction between applications and communities. ‘Resource’ is one of the key notions being analyzed within the IOF, which calls for a conceptual clarification despite the plethora of models proposed over the years.

The aim of this work is to contribute to this clarification with the ultimate purpose of supporting the development of an ontology for manufacturing resources based on principled modeling choices. Instead of presenting a computational ontology, we provide here a reference conceptual framework that can be used to both harmonizing existing models and develop domain ontologies tuned on specific requirements.

As a modelling notation, we shall rely on OntoUML to convey *graphically* the core meanings of the notions at stake. OntoUML is a UML extension for ontology-driven conceptual modeling [6] that has been successfully employed in a number of industrial projects in several different domains<fnref n="2" />. Thanks to its formal semantics, OntoUML diagrams can be straightforwardly translated (with some loss of expressivity) in a computational language like the Web Ontology Language<fnref n="3" /> (OWL).

The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we give an overview of the state of the art on resource modeling. In Sect. 3 we analyze the notion of manufacturing resource and propose a conceptual analysis based on ontological theories like [6, 7]. Sect. 4 shows how the analysis can be extended to integrate resource classifications based on multiple criteria. Sect. 5 concludes the paper by addressing the advantages and limits of our work.

## 2 Manufacturing Resource Modeling: A Conceptual Overview

The interpretation of what can be considered as manufacturing resource changes considerably across the literature. According to the standard MANDATE [8], a resource is “any device, tool and means, except raw material and final product components, at the disposal of the enterprise to produce goods and services”. The standard hence distinguishes what is transformed during a manufacturing activity (e.g., raw materials) from its final outcomes (products), and the physical means (machines, etc.) that bring about the transformation. From the definition, only the latter – humans included – are

<footnote n="1">¹ http://www.industrialontologies.org</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² http://www.menthor.net/ontouml.html</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/</footnote>
manufacturing resources. Differently, other proposals identify incoming material and/or transformed entities as resources as well [9,10].<fnref n="4" />

Several approaches rely explicitly on the relationship with (manufacturing) processes to characterize the notion of resource (e.g., [12-14]), while others complement this approach with the modeling of capabilities [14,15]. According to ISO 15704 [16], for example, a resource is “an enterprise entity that provides some or all of the capabilities required by the execution of an enterprise activity and/or business process.” Hence, the idea is that a resource can be employed for manufacturing because of its capabilities or – more generally – *attributes* [17] that are relevant to execute the desired processes. This idea leads us to think of resources in tight connection with application contexts, since one and the same resource can be ascribed with different attributes in relation to the process where it is employed.

The diversity concerning the conceptualization of manufacturing resources has a radical impact on how data is organized; it can also hamper data exchange if not properly handled. For example, by relying on MANDATE, reference to capabilities and processes is not required, differently from the case in which data is structured on the basis of ISO 15704. Additionally, if one takes seriously the *contextual nature* of resources, it should be possible for the same entity to be and not to be a resource across different contexts, as suggested in [12,18]. Current approaches have not treated contextual knowledge in a systematic manner. This easily leads to undesired interpretations, since persons, materials or tools, among others, are classified as resources independently of the contexts where they may happen to be in.

In the next section we dig into the analysis of manufacturing resources. By the end of the paper, we show how the proposed framework can deal with the diversity of views found in the literature.

## 3 Foundational Aspects of Manufacturing Resources

In order to represent manufacturing resources in a manner that is coherent with both ontological and engineering knowledge, we first need to introduce some general notions, which are then specified to the manufacturing domain.

Following existing standards [19] and ontologies [10, 20], we hold a basic distinction between (*physical*) objects and processes, e.g., drillers and drilling operations. The former are primarily extended in space, whereas the latter unfold through time. Participation is the most general link between objects and processes. Objects, but also processes, are characterized by qualities (*attributes* in the terms of [17]) like weights, which are said to *inhere* in objects (processes). Some objects are made of material, while others lack material constitution. Among the latter, *information objects* stand for the immaterial content of technical documents, e.g., Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models encoded on a physical support. For instance, when two computer files are copies of the same CAD model, in our framework this means that they share the

<footnote n="4">⁴ Recall that several standards, e.g., ISO 10303 AP-238, ISO 14649 (STEP-NC), ISO 13399, and ASME B5.59-2, deal with (CNC) manufacturing resources (see [11]).</footnote>
same information object. Accordingly, an information object can be encoded in mul-
tiple supports, for instance, different computer files.

With these basic notions, we now dig into the OntoUML diagram showed in Fig. 1.<fnref n="5" /> The idea is to consider a manufacturing resource as an entity that is related to a manufacturing process plan because it is relevant for some goal specified in the plan. We shall see throughout the section how this is represented in the model.

For our purposes, we understand agents as (physical) objects with sensors, actu-
tors, and the capability of acting on the environment by adopting plans to reach some
goals. Goals are intentional states inhering in agents and referring to desired states of
the world. We assume that agents have at least one goal,<fnref n="6" /> whereas plans are ways
(strategies) to achieve goals. For example, if an agent has the goal of creating a table,
this goal is satisfied in all states of the world where a physical table, bearing the quali-
ties desired by the agent, exists. To achieve one of such states, a suitable plan must be
realized.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Core elements for the conceptual representation of manufacturing resources</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Classes with names prefixed by *Mfg* or *MR* are specific to manufacturing. *Mfg* stands for manufacturing, *MR* for manufacturing resource. Classes in green are taken from [21].</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ The *has-goal* relation between *MfgAgent* and *MfgGoal* is of the same type of relation holding between qualities and, e.g., physical objects or processes. For simplicity, these latter relations are not shown in Fig. 1.</footnote>
Manufacturing plans (*MfgPlan*) are information objects (like workflows) that specify the sequence of actions to be performed to realize a goal. We assume that manufacturing goals are goals such that a manufacturing plan exists for them. So we assume a relation *has-plan* between manufacturing goals and manufacturing plans such that for a manufacturing goal there is at least a plan, and vice versa.

The class *MfgPlanRealization*, subsumed by *Process*, refers to the actual manufacturing processes that realize manufacturing plans. A plan may not be always realized; this is why the multiplicities of the relation *realizes* from *MfgPlanRealization* to *MfgPlan* is 0..* on the side of the former class.

For the purposes of this paper, an important part of a manufacturing plan is the description of the various resources to be used to realize the plan. We introduce therefore the class *MfgResourceDescription*, whose instances are proper parts of a *MfgPlan*. For each *MfgPlan*, at least one *MfgResourceDescription* must exist. Like manufacturing plans, manufacturing resource descriptions are information objects

We are now in the position to define a manufacturing resource as something that satisfies a *MfgResourceDescription* that is part of a *MfgPlan*. A resource is relevant-for a specific plan if and only if it satisfies a resource description that is part of that plan (the relevant-for relation appearing in **Fig. 1** is therefore a derived relation). The notion of satisfaction of a description has been discussed in [21], and will be taken here as a primitive. In general, a given entity may satisfy or not a resource description depending on its qualities. Within manufacturing resources, we distinguish between physical objects and amounts of matter, since these are the most general classes of entities to which one commonly refers (see Sect. 2).

An instance of *MfgResource* has to satisfy at least one instance *MfgResourceDescription*. On the contrary, a *MfgResourceDescription* may have no resources that satisfy it. Note that a resource may be relevant-for a certain plan even if it does not *participate* in its realization. For instance, we typically require that all the resources that are relevant for a certain plan must exist (and be *available*, see below) before a realization process starts. On the contrary, entities of different kinds (such as air or dust particles) may actually participate in a process without being considered as resources. In conclusion, we can see resources as entities such that, in virtue of their qualities, are considered as *relevant* for a manufacturing plan and may therefore play the role in manufacturing processes by participating to certain activities.

As a final comment, let us highlight the *role* nature of resources that emerges from the analysis of the state of the art.<fnref n="7" /> In ontology engineering, roles are properties which are always *contingent*, being satisfied only within certain contexts [6,7,21]. Generalizing, the idea is that talking of manufacturing resources means referring to entities that are primarily classified by *non-role* classes and that may play certain roles when employed for manufacturing. This is why in **Fig. 1 MRPhysicalObject** and *MRAmountOfMatter*, referring to object and amount of material resources, are subsumed by both *MfgResource* (*role class*) and *PhysicalObject* and *AmountOfMatter*,

<footnote n="7">⁷ By looking at Fig. 1, *MfgResource*, *MRPhysicalObject* and *MRAmountOfMatter* are marked with the stereotypes *roleRWixin* to make explicit their role nature. A *roleRWixin* class has instances of different types [6], e.g., persons, products, etc.</footnote>
respectively, the latter two being non-role classes. With this approach, based on [6,7],
the conceptual model provides the flexibility to isolate manufacturing resources in
their contexts. It is important to stress that the attribution of a (manufacturing) re-
source role is strictly dependent on a process plan. By looking at **Fig. 1**, the relation
relevant-for between *MfgResource* and *MfgPlan* means that a manufacturing resource
role is necessary to achieve some goals specified in the plan.

4 High-level Classification of Manufacturing Resources

We now distinguish between different manufacturing resource roles according to both
ontological and engineering criteria. In particular, the classification is based on three
orthogonal principles: (i) agentivity, (ii) mode of deployment, and (iii) control. The
classification is not meant to be exhaustive; it rather provides a high-level taxonomy
that can be extended to cover specific scenarios. For simplicity, we refer only to phys-
ical resources, whereas their corresponding descriptions can be easily introduced.

First, we distinguish between *agentive* and *non-agentive* resources, depending on
whether the entity ascribed with the resource role is an agent or not. A standard mill-
ing machine is an example of non-agentive resource; a milling machine embedded
with a cyber-physical architecture may be an example of agentive resource.<fnref n="8" />

Second, in line with the engineering literature, we want to make sense of the dis-
tinction between (i) resources that ‘passively’ undergo manufacturing processes, e.g.,
planks of wood, (ii) resources that ‘actively’ act on the former, e.g., milling machines,
and (iii) resources that result from manufacturing processes, e.g., products. Taking
inspiration from IDEF0⁹ and previous works [10, 14], these correspond in our ap-
proach to *input*, *mechanism*, and *output manufacturing resources*, respectively. Dif-
ferently from the agent vs non-agent dichotomy, the latter notions are not disjoint,
since one object can act on itself, i.e., it can be input, mechanism, and output in the
same process like a robot changing its configuration.

Third, we distinguish between *allocated, dedicated, and available* manufacturing
resources, which refer to temporary states. Allocated resources are assigned and em-
ployed in manufacturing processes (plan realizations). Dedicated resources are as-
signed to processes, which may not however employ them. The fact that a resource is
dedicated to an individual process *p* implies that it cannot be assigned to another pro-
cess occurring at the same time of *p*. Available resources are present (in a factory),
although they are neither allocated nor dedicated. An example is a screwdriver availa-
ble at the shop floor meaning that any agent in the shop floor could use it if necessary.

Since the classification criteria are orthogonal, they can be (consistently) com-
bined. **Fig. 2** shows the extension of the class *MfgResource* with the classes presented
above,<fnref n="10" /> whereas **Table 1** suggests some examples at the intersection between the
agentivity and mode of deployment criteria.

<footnote n="8">⁸ It is assumed that only objects can be agentive in our ontology; amounts of matter cannot.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ http://www.idef.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The relationships *input-of*, *output-of*, and *mechanism-of* specialize *participates*.</footnote>
The classification presented in Fig. 2 can be used as high-level taxonomy to integrate multiple classifications. For instance, following [13], mechanism resources may be further specialized into *primary* and *auxiliary* resources to emphasize the distinction between resources “that are in charge of executing operations”, and resources “that are defined in relation to primary resources that employ them”, respectively. In Industry 4.0 contexts [2], the classification of resources with a cyber-physical architecture plays a fundamental role, and different classes of cyber-physical systems (CPS) can be distinguished because the characteristics that must be shown for each level of abstraction may be different [22]. Also, for specific application domains, the taxonomy may be extended to cover, e.g., machining or additive manufacturing resources, among others.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Intersection between agentivity and mode of deployment</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Agentive resource</th><th>Non-agentive resource</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Input resource</th><td>Drilling robot</td><td>Plank of wood</td></tr><tr><th>Mechanism resource</th><td>Employee</td><td>Cutting tool</td></tr><tr><th>Output resource</th><td>Drilling robot equipped with drill bit</td><td>Table</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 5 Discussion and Conclusions

The conceptualization of manufacturing resources presented in the paper provides a general framework for their representation in application ontologies and data models for manufacturing. As said, our purpose was not the proposal of an ontology for computational applications. Rather, we presented a conceptual analysis with the purpose of making clear the properties that manufacturing resources have to satisfy independently from specific application requirements. The proposed framework gives a high-level perspective on manufacturing resources, and needs therefore to be extended to cover specific domain knowledge. The generality of the proposal makes it suitable to harmonize various views under the same umbrella, which has therefore the potentiality of acting as integration schema across multiple sources. Consider, e.g., the notion of resource in MANDATE [8] that, as we saw in Sect. 2, is restricted to what we call mechanisms, differently from the approaches in [10,12] which cover products (outcomes) and raw materials (inputs), too. At the current state, these models
are not interoperable, whereas their alignment to our ontology can enable their smooth
interaction. From this perspective, the ontology can be used to compare various ap-
proaches and to assess their (conceptual) similarities and differences.

Additionally, differently from the state of the art, the proposed framework allows one to consider explicitly the *contextual dimension* of manufacturing resource classes, an approach that is coherent with both ontological and engineering knowledge. Consider, e.g., the specific milling machine *mch_id21*. From an ontological perspective, *mch_id21* is an artifact, i.e., an object intentionally designed and created to satisfy customers' needs. For manufacturing purposes, we want to say that *mch_id21* can be a mechanism resource *if* employed to perform certain processes. This means that *mch_id21* is an artifact for its very nature, whereas it is considered as a mechanism resource only with respect to certain manufacturing contexts. Hence, if *mch_id21* is never considered as relevant with respect to a manufacturing goal, it is never a resource, while it remains a machine with specific qualities and capabilities. The same reasoning applies to human resources, among others.

The proposed approach has interesting consequences from a modeling perspective. First, objects (and amounts of matter) can assume different resource roles within and across manufacturing processes and organizations. For example, one and the same machining tool can be the outcome resource of process *p*₁ and the mechanism resource of process *p*₂ occurring after *p*₁. Also, as previously seen, nothing prevents the same object to participate consistently as input, mechanism, and output resource in the same process. Second, by using our approach, one can revise models like, for instance, that in [17], where classes like *Person*, *Tool*, and *Material* are subsumed by *Resource*, to make them ontologically more tenable and, in turn, more reusable. Indeed, once we take *Resource* as a role, the taxonomical link between these classes cannot hold, since it would lead to the undesired classification of instances of the former classes as being always instances of *Resource*. Differently, our ontology allows referring to, e.g., tools independently from the resource role they may have in manufacturing processes, hence to classify them as resources only when needed.

Further work on our proposal is necessary to consolidate the approach with respect
to both ontological modeling principles and engineering application scenarios. For
example, a deeper analysis of resources’ capabilities is necessary to establish a
stronger link with processes. Also, even though our OntoUML model can be straight-
forwardly translated into computational languages like OWL, further work is required
to a more expressive ontology in formal languages like first-order or common logics;
these would allow exploring the semantic of the employed terms in a broader manner
to check coherence with respect to the engineering domain.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. High-level taxonomy of manufacturing resources</figcaption></figure>

References

1. El Kadiri, S., Kiritsis, D.: Ontologies in the context of product lifecycle management: state of the art literature review. Int. J. of Production Research 53(18), 5657–5668 (2015). doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1052155

2. Monostori, L., Kádár, B., Bauernhansl, T., Kondoh, S., Kumara, S., Reinhart, G. Ueda, K.: Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. CIRP Annals 65(2), 621–641 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2016.06.005

3. Weichhart, G., Molina, A., Chen, D., Whitman, L.E., Vernadat, F.: Challenges and current developments for sensing, smart and sustainable enterprise systems. Computers in Industry 79, 34–46 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.002

4. Lu, Y., Morris, K.C., Frechette, S.: Current standards landscape for smart manufacturing systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 8107, 22–28 (2016). doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.8107

5. Chungoora, N., Young, R.I., Gunendran, G., Palmer, C., Usman, Z., Anjum, N.A., Case, K.: A model-driven ontology approach for manufacturing system interoperability and knowledge sharing. Computers in Industry 64(4), 392–401 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.compind.2013.01.003
6. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models, Twente University (2005)

7. Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An overview of OntoClean. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 201–220. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_9

8. Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Industrial Manufacturing Management Data – General Overview: Part 1 (2004). ISO TC184/SC4, ISO IS 15531-1

9. Browning, T.R., Fricke, E., Negele, H.: Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Wiley InterScience, Systems Engineering 9 (2), 104–128 (2006). doi:10.1002/sys.20047

10. Solano, L., Romero, F., Rosado, P.: An ontology for integrated machining and inspection process planning focusing on resource capabilities. Int. J. Computer Integrated Manufacturing 29, 1–15 (2016). doi:10.1080/0951192X.2014.1003149

11. Vichare, P., Nassehi, A., Newman, S.: A unified manufacturing resource model for representation of computerized numerically controlled machine tools. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 223, 463–483 (2009). doi:10.1243/09544054JEM1363

12. Labrousse, M., Bernard, A.: FBS-PPRE, an enterprise knowledge lifecycle model. In: Methods and tools for effective knowledge life-cycle-management, pp. 285–305. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78431-9_16

13. Bonfatti, F., Monari, P.D., Paganelli, P.: Resource-free and resource-dependent aspects of process modelling: a rule-based conceptual approach. Int. J. Computer Integrated Manufacturing 11(1), 60–76 (1998). doi:10.1080/095119298130985

14. Solano, L., Rosado, P., Romero, F.: Knowledge representation for product and processes development planning in collaborative environments. Int. J. Computer Integrated Manufacturing 27, 787–801 (2014). doi:10.1080/0951192X.2013.834480

15. Newman, S.T., Nassehi, A.: Machine tool capability profile for intelligent process planning. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 58, 421–424 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.031

16. ISO 15704 (2000). Industrial automation systems – Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies

17. Inden, U., Mehandjiev, N., Mönch, L., Vrba, P.: Towards an ontology for small series production. In: International Conference on Industrial Applications of Holonic and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 128–139. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40090-2_12

18. Fadel, F.G., Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: A generic enterprise resource ontology. In: 3rd IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies. Morgantown, April 17-19 (1994). doi:10.1109/ENABL.1994.330496

19. ISO 18629-1 (2004). Industrial automation systems and integration – Process Specification Language -- Part 1: Overview and basic principles

20. Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 361–381. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_16

21. Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N.: Social Roles and their Descriptions. In: KR, pp. 267–277 (2004)

22. Röpke, H., Hell, K., Zawisza, J., Lüder, A., Schmidt, N.: Identification of “Industrie 4.0” component hierarchy layers. In: Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on, pp. 1–8 (2016). doi:10.1109/ETFA.2016.7733752