Abstract:
A design rule management method implemented in a rule verification apparatus for checking a violation against a design rule which specifies a part shape when there is any change in parameters in a system, the rule verification apparatus including: a processing unit for processing information; an input unit for inputting information; and a storage unit for storing a first design rule, a second design rule and relationship strength therebetween in association with one another, the method allowing the processing unit to perform steps including: acquiring the changed parameter via the input unit; and in a rule verification to determine whether or not there is any violation in the design rules that use the changed parameter, acquiring from the storage unit all the design rules having the relationship strength of a predetermined value, and performing the rule verification on all the acquired design rules.

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/016,224, filed Jan. 18, 2008 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,505. This application relates to and claims priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-068974, filed on Mar. 16, 2007. The entirety of the contents and subject matter of all of the above is incorporated herein by reference. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Field of the Invention 
     The present invention relates to a design rule management method, design rule management program, rule management apparatus and rule verification apparatus. 
     2. Description of the Related Art 
     Design rules (hereinafter also referred to as just “rules” when necessary) are often used in designing with a CAD system (Computer Aided Design). The design rules are information composed of (including) a sort of conditions and relational expressions for determining a design parameter (hereinafter also referred to just as a “parameter” when necessary) which specifies a shape of each part. For example, the design rules are a condition which regulates an interval of components and a condition of a width of wiring. 
     When a shape of a part is changed on the CAD system, a rule verification is performed for checking whether or not a part-shape parameter, which is one of parameters which are being changed, violates a design rule. 
     As an example of the rule verification method for checking whether or not parameters necessary for a product designing violates a rule, in some commercially-supplied CAD systems, allowable ranges of mass property values of shape dimensions and weights are predefined as a rule on the CAD system so that the rule verification is automatically performed when a part shape is changed in the CAD system. 
     In a CAE (Computer Aided Engineering) system, if allowable ranges of parameters are predefined as a rule in an analysis program, a rule verification is performed on analysis data. A program performing a calculation by using a user interface of a table format and a script, known as a simple analytical calculation tool is also generally used in designing. When such a tool is used, a rule is predefined as a script so that a rule verification is also performed, similar to the above case of the analysis program. 
     There has been proposed an integrated parameter expression model by a university. For example, a technique disclosed in a non-patent document 1 is capable of expressing a product entity such as a part, its attribute and its activity (task) by linking via networks the product entity, the attribute and the activity which are involved in a product development. Non-patent document 1: “Proposition of Product Behavior and Topology Design Process Model for Reliability Design System,” by Kazuhiro Aoyama, Tsuyoshi Koga, Susumu Kinoshita, online: http://www.msel.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/˜tsuyoshi-koga/B5.pdf, (accessed on Mar. 8, 2006) 
     In a conventional designing of a product, rules are described and managed in an individual system such as a CAD system, an analysis program, an analysis control program and a PDA (Product Data Management), and a rule verification is performed in each system. The conventional method has had the following disadvantages. 
     1. Each rule is only valid in its corresponding system, and thus it is difficult to describe and check a rule through the entire design data of those systems. 
     2. The rules are treated as different data in a different system, and thus it is difficult to maintain the rules through the systems. 
     The following is a specific example of the disadvantage  1 . It is assumed that a rule “the size a11 of the part A &gt;10 mm” is assigned to a product shape which has been modeled by a CAD system and the fixed number “10 mm” is based on an analysis parameter which is one of parameters resulted from an analysis of a different analysis program. In this case, a rule using such a fixed number is not available anymore when a design target or a design condition are once changed, which makes the rule incompatible. More specifically, because a rule used in a CAD system and a rule used in an analysis program are treated as different data in each other, a result from a condition change in the analysis program becomes difficult to be reflected in the CAD system for example. 
     Moreover, when it is necessary to modify a rule that has been deviated from an actual design target and design condition because of the disadvantage  1 , the disadvantage  2  has further to be resolved. Because of these disadvantages, a rule verification system may not work properly after the rules are changed many times. In order to solve the above disadvantages, there has been desired a system that associates a plurality of rules, each of which is described in corresponding design support system, so as to integrally manages the rules and performs a rule verification in chains through the entire systems. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention is made in view of the above circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to enable to recognize design rules which are substantially the same but written as different design rules in different systems as the same design rule. 
     The present invention acquires a design rule for regulating a part shape, converts the design rule into data having a hierarchical node format, calculates relationship strength which indicates the strength of a relationship between the design rule which has been converted into the data having the hierarchical node format and another node, assigns a maximum value to the relationship strength between the design rule and another design rule which is substantially the same as the design rule but described in a different system and associates the relationship strength and the design rules and stores the relationship strength and the design rules in a storage unit. 
     A first aspect of the present invention provides a design rule management method implemented in a rule management apparatus which manages design rules for specifying a part shape and includes a processing unit for processing information; an input unit for inputting information; and a storage unit for storing information, the method allowing the processing unit to perform steps including acquiring a plurality of the design rules via the input unit; converting each of the acquired design rules into data having a hierarchical node format; calculating, for each design rule converted into data having the hierarchical node format, relationship strength indicating strength of a relationship to another node; converting into a predetermined value the relationship strength between a first design rule and a second design rule, and storing in the storage unit the relationship strength, the first design rule and the second design rule in association with one another, wherein the first design rule is arbitrarily chosen from the plurality of the design rules and the second design rule is substantially the same as the first design rule but described in a manner different from that of the first design rule. 
     A second aspect of the present invention provides a design rule management method implemented in a rule verification apparatus for checking a violation against a design rule which specifies a part shape when there is any change in parameters in a system, the rule verification apparatus including a processing unit for processing information; an input unit for inputting information; and a storage unit for storing a first design rule, a second design rule and relationship strength therebetween in association with one another, the method allowing the processing unit to perform steps including acquiring the changed parameter via the input unit; and in a rule verification to determine whether or not there is any violation in the design rules that use the changed parameter, acquiring from the storage unit all the design rules having the relationship strength of a predetermined value, and performing the rule verification on all the acquired design rules. 
     A third aspect of the present invention provides a design rule management program recorded in a computer readable recording medium which performs the method according to the first aspect of the present invention. 
     A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a design rule management program recorded in a computer readable recording medium which performs the method according to the second aspect of the present invention. 
     A fifth aspect of the present invention provides a rule management apparatus for managing design rules which specify a part shape and include a processing unit for processing information; an input unit for inputting information and a storage unit for storing information, wherein the processing unit acquires a plurality of the design rules via the input unit; converting each of the acquired design rules into data having a hierarchical node format; calculates, for each design rule converted into data having the hierarchical node format, relationship strength indicating strength of a relationship to another node, converts into a predetermined value the relationship strength between a first design rule and a second design rule, and storing in the storage unit the relationship strength, the first design rule and the second design rule in association with one another, wherein the first design rule is arbitrarily chosen from the plurality of the design rules and the second design rule is substantially the same as the first design rule but described in a manner different from that of the first design rule. 
     A sixth aspect of the present invention provides a rule verification apparatus for checking a violation against a design rule which specifies a part shape when there is any change in parameters in a system, the rule verification apparatus including a processing unit for processing information; an input unit for inputting information; and a storage unit for storing a first design rule, a second design rule and relationship strength therebetween in association with one another, wherein the processing unit acquires the parameter which is changed via the input unit; in a rule verification to determine whether or not there is any violation in the design rules that use the changed parameter, acquires from the storage unit all the design rules having a predetermined value in the relationship strength with the design rule using the acquired parameter, and performs a rule verification on all the acquired design rules. 
     Other features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the following detailed descriptions of the invention when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is an example of a functional block diagram of a rule management apparatus according to an embodiment. 
         FIG. 2  is an example of a functional block diagram of a rule verification apparatus according to the embodiment. 
         FIG. 3  is a flow chart showing a process in the rule management apparatus according to the embodiment. 
         FIG. 4  is a flow chart showing a process of step S 105  in  FIG. 3 . 
         FIG. 5  is an example of a rule editing screen. 
         FIG. 6  is a flow chart showing a process in the rule verification apparatus according to the embodiment. 
         FIG. 7  is an example of a rule verification result screen shown at step S 305  of  FIG. 6 ; 
         FIG. 7A  is an illustration showing an overall view of the rule verification result screen; 
         FIG. 7B  is an example of an icon which appears when some parameter violates a rule; 
         FIG. 7C  is an example of an icon which appears when no parameter violates any rule. 
         FIG. 8  is a configuration example of a rule verification system according to the embodiment. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Embodiment for implementing the present invention will be described hereinafter in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. 
       FIG. 1  is an example of a functional block diagram of a rule management apparatus according to the embodiment. 
     The rule management apparatus  1  includes a shape rule data processing unit  101 , an analysis rule data processing unit  102 , an analysis control rule data processing unit  103 , a rule data collecting unit  104 , a rule relationship generation unit  105 , a rule relationship editing unit  106 , a shape rule DB(Data Base)  107 , an analysis rule DB  108 , an analysis control rule DB  109 , a thesaurus  110  and an integrating rule DB  300 . 
     The shape rule data processing unit  101 , the analysis rule data processing unit  102  and an analysis control rule data processing unit  103  are also referred to as “an input unit”, the rule data collecting unit  104 , the rule relationship generation unit  105  and the rule relationship editing unit  106  are also referred to as “a processing unit”. The integrating rule DB  300  is also referred to as “a storage unit”. 
     The shape rule DB 107  stores shape rule data sent from the CAD system  401  which deals with a size parameter, a geometric binding relationship and a mass property and the like. The analysis rule DB  108  stores analysis rule data sent from an analysis program  402 . The analysis control rule DB  109  stores analysis control rule data sent from an analysis control program  403 . The shape rule data, analysis rule data and analysis control rule data include information on a rule name and a rule formula and the like. In the embodiment, the shape rule data, the analysis rule data and the analysis control rule data are collectively called rule data. 
     The shape rule data processing unit  101  has functions of acquiring shape rule data from the shape rule DB 107  and converting the acquired shape rule data into data having a node data format. The node data format is for displaying product data, part data, attribute data and rule data that are related to one another as hierarchical nodes which displays the data hierarchically, which is described later with reference to  FIG. 5 . 
     Similarly, the analysis rule data processing unit  102  has functions of acquiring analysis rule data from the analysis rule DB  108  and converting the acquired analysis rule data into data having the node data format. The analysis control rule data processing unit  103  has functions of acquiring analysis control rule data from the analysis control rule DB  109  and converting the acquired analysis control rule data into the node data format. 
     Node data is formed in a data format including “node type”, “node ID”, “related node” and “relationship strength”. An example of rule node data would be such that the node type is “rule”, the node ID is “rule  1 ”, the related node is “rule  2 ” and the relationship strength is “0.7” (in this embodiment, it is assumed that the maximum value of the relationship strength is 1.0 for the convenience of the explanation). 
     The node data format can be applied not only to the rule data but also to the product data, the part data and the attribute data. 
     The rule data collecting unit  104  has a function of acquiring rule node data from the shape rule data processing unit  101 , the analysis rule data processing unit  102  and the analysis control rule data processing unit  103 . 
     The rule relationship generation unit  105  has functions that detect a relationship between the rule node data and another node data on the basis of the thesaurus  110  and the like, and store information of the detected relationship in the integrating rule DB  300 . A method for detecting the relationship is described later with reference to  FIG. 4 . 
     The rule relationship editing unit  106  has functions that display the information of the relationship detected by the rule relationship generation unit  105 , and edit the information of the relationship when a rule information setter  404  edits node data via a pointing device such as a mouse not shown. 
     The integrating rule DB  300  stores information of the relationships between each node data. 
     The thesaurus  110  stores information of synonyms. 
     In this embodiment, the units  101  to  106  and the data bases  107  to  110 ,  300  are incorporated in an integrated apparatus, however, the data bases  107  to  110 ,  300  may be implemented in a file server other than the rule management apparatus  1 . 
     In this embodiment, the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402 , and the analysis control program  403  are implemented in an apparatus other than the rule management apparatus  1 , however, at least one of the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402  and the analysis control program  403  may be included in the rule management apparatus  1 . 
     Moreover, the rule management apparatus  1  according to the embodiment may include a PDM rule data processing unit and a PDM rule DB not shown, which stores PDM rule data sent from a PDM system. 
       FIG. 2  is an example of a functional block diagram of a rule verification apparatus according to the embodiment. 
     In  FIG. 2 , similar reference numbers are assigned to elements corresponding to the elements shown in  FIG. 1 , and the description thereof will be omitted. 
     The rule verification apparatus  2  includes a shape parameter acquire unit  201 , an analysis parameter acquire unit  202 , an analysis control parameter acquire unit  203 , a rule verification processing unit  204 , a rule verification result notification unit  205  and the integrating rule DB  300 . 
     The shape parameter acquire unit  201 , the analysis parameter acquire unit  202  and the analysis control parameter acquire unit  203  are also referred to as “an input unit”. The rule verification processing unit  204  and the rule verification result notification unit  205  are also referred to as “a processing unit”. The integrating rule DB  300  is also referred to as “a storage unit”. 
     The shape parameter acquire unit  201  has a function of acquiring a shape parameter which is changed when a user  405  changes CAD data in the CAD system  401 . 
     The analysis parameter acquire unit  202  has a function of acquiring an analysis parameter which is changed when the user  405  changes a condition and executes the analysis program  402 . 
     The analysis control parameter acquire unit  203  has a function of acquiring an analysis control parameter which is changed when the user  405  changes a condition and executes the analysis control program  403 . 
     The rule verification processing unit  204  has a function of performing a rule verification based on each parameter acquired from each acquire unit  201  to  203  and node data acquired from the integrating rule DB  300 . 
     The rule verification result notification unit  205  has a function of notifying the user  405  of a result of the rule verification performed by the rule verification processing unit  204  by displaying the result on a display unit not shown. 
     In this embodiment, the units  201  to  205  and the integrating rule DB  300  are implemented integrally in an apparatus, however, the implementation is not limited to this, and the integrating rule DB  300  may be implemented in a file server other than the rule verification apparatus  2 . 
     In this embodiment, the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402  and the analysis control program  403  are implemented in an apparatus other than the rule verification apparatus  2 , however, the implementation is not limited to this and at least one of the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402  and the analysis control program  403  may be included in the rule verification apparatus  2 . 
     Moreover, the rule verification apparatus  2  according to the embodiment may include a PDM parameter acquire unit for acquiring a PDM parameter which is changed when the user  405  changes a condition and executes a PDM program. 
     In this embodiment, the rule management apparatus  1  shown in  FIG. 1  is implemented in an apparatus other than an apparatus in which the rule verification apparatus  2  shown in  FIG. 2  is implemented. However, the implementation is not limited to this, and the rule management apparatus  1  and the rule verification apparatus  2  may be integrally implemented in one apparatus. 
     Each unit  101  to  106  shown in  FIG. 1  and each unit  201  to  205  shown in  FIG. 2  is embodied when a program stored in a HD (Hard Disk) and a ROM (Read Only Memory) is expanded on a RAM (Random Access Memory) and is executed by a CPU (Central Processing Unit). 
     &lt;Process for Rule Relationship Generation&gt; 
       FIG. 3  is a flow chart showing a process in the rule management apparatus according to the embodiment. 
     A process shown in  FIG. 3  may be executed, for example, once a day or be initiated when a rule information setter  404  loads a design rule management program for generating rule relationships. 
     Before the process is started, shape rule data sent from the CAD system  401  to the rule management apparatus  1  is stored in the shape rule DB 107  in the rule management apparatus. Similarly, analysis rule data sent from the analysis program  402  to the rule management apparatus  1  is stored in the analysis rule DB  108 , and analysis control rule data sent from the analysis control program  403  to the rule management apparatus  1  is stored in the analysis control rule DB  109 . 
     Then, the shape rule data processing unit  101  acquires the shape rule data from the shape rule DB 107  and converts the acquired shape rule data into data having an node data format (S 101 ). 
     The analysis rule data processing unit  102  then acquires analysis rule data from the analysis rule DB  108  and converts the acquired analysis rule data into data having the node data format (S 102 ). 
     The analysis control rule data processing unit  103  then acquires analysis control rule data from the analysis control rule DB  109  and converts the analysis control rule data into data having the node data format (S 103 ). 
     The shape rule data, the analysis rule data and the analysis control rule data will be collectively referred to as “rule data”, and the design rule data which have been converted into data having the node data format will be referred to as “rule node data” for convenience of explanation. 
     It is to be understood that the processes from steps S 101  to S 103  do not have to be executed in the described order. 
     All the processes of the steps S 101  to S 103  do not have to be executed, and the embodiment can be realized if at lease one of the processes is executed. 
     In the steps S 101  to S 103 , the shape rule data processing unit  101 , the analysis rule data processing unit  102  and the analysis control rule data processing unit  103  also perform processing to set “rule” for a node type of each of the acquired rule data and assign a node ID (rule ID) to each of the acquired rule data. A related node ID and relationship strength are left blank at these steps. 
     The rule management apparatus  1  also acquires part data and attribute data from the CAD system  401  and the like in parallel with the steps S 101  to S 103  and converts the acquired part data and attribute data into data having the node data format similarly to the processing in the steps S 101  to S 103  (this process is not shown). The part data and attribute data that are converted into data having the node data format are respectively referred to as part node data and attribute node data. 
     Next, a rule data collecting unit  104  acquires the rule node data from the shape rule data processing unit, the analysis rule data processing unit, the analysis control rule data processing unit (S 104 ). 
     Then, the rule relationship generation unit  105  detects a relationship between rule node data and rule node data, part node data or attribute node data and stores the detected relationship in the integrating rule DB  300  after describing the detected relationship in the rule node data (S 105 ). 
     To be more specific, the processing describes the related node ID and the relationship strength which are left blank in the rule node data which has been converted into data having the node data format at the processes of steps S 101  to S 103 , and then stores in the integrating rule DB  300  the rule node data in which the related node ID and the relationship strength are written. Details of step S 105  (detection of the relationship) are explained with reference to  FIG. 4 . 
     Then, a rule relationship editing unit  106  displays a result of the process of step S 105  on a displaying unit not shown and stores in the integrating rule DB  300  rule node data which is modified as needed (S 106 ). The process of step S 106  is explained with reference to  FIG. 5 . 
       FIG. 4  is a flow chart showing the process of the step S 105  in  FIG. 3 . 
     At first, the rule relationship generation unit  105  calculates the similarity degree between rule names (S 201 ). To be more specific, the rule relationship generation unit  105  acquires a rule name on the basis of the rule ID of the rule node data acquired at the step S 104  referring to the shape rule DB 107 , the analysis rule DB  108  and the analysis control rule DB  109 . Then, the rule relationship generation unit  105  searches for a rule ID of rule node data which has the same rule name as the rule name, referring to the shape rule DB  107 , the analysis rule DB  108  and the analysis control rule data DB  109 . When the rule ID is detected, the rule relationship generation unit  105  sets the similarity degree between these rule data to be 1.0 and acquires the detected rule ID. When the rule ID is not detected, the rule relationship generation unit  105  searches for a rule ID of rule data having a rule name similar to the rule name, referring to the thesaurus  110 . When the rule ID is detected, the rule relationship generation unit  105  calculates the similarity degree between the rule data according to a predetermined rule, and acquires the detected rule ID. When the rule ID is not detected, the relationship generation unit  105  sets the similarity degree to be 0, and leave the related node ID blank. 
     Then, the rule relationship generation unit  105  calculates the similarity degree between a name of an attribute used in the rule and a name of another attribute, which is an input and output parameter of rule data, by using the thesaurus  110  similarly to step S 201  (S 202 ). Attribute node data and names of attributes are stored in an attribute DB not shown. The rule relationship generation unit  105  searches for the name of the attribute stored in the attribute DB and acquires the attribute ID of the attribute. 
     Then, by using the thesaurus  110 , similarly to the step S 201 , the rule relationship generation unit  105  calculates the similarity degree between a name of a part used in the rule and a name of another part to which an attribute, which is the input and output parameter of rule data, pertains to (S 203 ). Part node data and names of parts are stored in a part DB not shown. The rule relationship generation unit  105  refers to the part DB to acquire the name of the part, and then calculates the similarity degree between the name of the part used in the rule and the name of the part which has been acquired. Then, the rule relationship generation unit  105  acquires the part ID of the acquired part for which the similarity degree is calculated. 
     Then, the value of the similarity degree is assigned to the relationship strength, for example. After that, the rule relationship generation unit  105  assigns to the related node ID the rule ID, the attribute ID or the part ID of the rule, attribute or part that are determined to have similar names as the names of the rule, attribute or part for which similar rule, attribute and part are searched for, and stores the related node ID and the relationship strength in the integrating rule DB  300  (S 204 ). In step S 204 , the rule relationship generation unit  105  generates rule node data for each of the acquired rule ID, attribute ID and part ID. 
       FIG. 5  is an example of a rule editing screen  502 . 
     A rule editing screen  501  is a screen which is displayed in the process of step S 106  in  FIG. 3 . 
     The rule editing screen  501  includes a design rule data edit window. 
     A product node  503 , part nodes  504 ,  508 , attribute nodes  505 ,  507 ,  509 ,  511 ,  514  and rule nodes  506 ,  510  are displayed in the hierarchical node format in the design rule data edit window  502 . 
     A product name and part name are respectively displayed in the product node  503  and the part nodes  504 ,  508 . 
     Attribute information on parts which are linked to the attribute nodes  505 ,  507 ,  509 ,  511 ,  514  are displayed in the attribute nodes  505 ,  507 ,  509 ,  511 ,  514 . For example, displayed in the attribute nodes  505 ,  514  are “ATTRIBUTE A 12 ” and “ATTRIBUTE A 11 ” which are attribute information on “PART A 1 ” shown in the part node  504 . Displayed in the attribute node  509  is “ATTRIBUTE A 21 ” which is attribute information on “PART A 21 ” shown in the part node  508 . The attribute nodes  507  and  511  are explained later. The attribute information displayed in the attribute nodes  505 ,  507 ,  509 ,  511 ,  514  are attribute information on a shape such as a size and a length obtained from the CAD system  401  and information of an analysis result obtained from the analysis program  402 . 
     Rule names corresponding to the rule IDs of rule node data are respectively displayed in the rule nodes  506 ,  510 . Displayed in the attribute node  507  is an “ATTRIBUTE X 11 ” which is a result of applying the “ATTRIBUTE A 12 ” to a rule formula of a “RULE  1 ” shown in the rule node  506 . Displayed in the attribute node  511  is an “ATTRIBUTE Y 11 ” which is a result of applying the “ATTRIBUTE A 21 ” to a rule formula of a “RULE  2 ” shown in the rule node  510 . 
     Nodes which are related to each other (nodes which have a value more than 0 in the relationship strength between the nodes) are connected by a link line. Link lines between a part node and an attribute node or an attribute node and a rule node are shown in full lines, whereas link lines between attribute nodes are shown in dash lines (e.g. dash line  513 ). The thickness or color of these link lines may be changed depending on the value of the relationship strength. 
     If a rule information provider determines that attributes displayed in two attribute nodes are the same (equal value), the rule information provider drags one of the attribute nodes to the other one of the attribute nodes by using a mouse and the like. (Arrow  512 ) 
     When this operation is performed, the rule relationship editing unit  106  of the rule management apparatus  1  sets the relationship strength between a rule node which is linked to one of the two attribute nodes and a rule node which is linked to the other one of the two attribute nodes to be 1.0. To be more specific, the rule relationship editing unit  106  acquires from the integrating rule DB  300  rule node data having as the related node ID an attribute ID shown in the attribute node to which the attribute node is dragged, and generates rule node data having as the related node ID the rule ID of the acquired rule node data and the relationship strength of 1.0. Then, the rule relationship editing unit  106  stores the generated rule node data in the integrating rule DB  300 . 
     In accordance with the process, it is possible to assign the value of 1.0 to the relationship strength between rule nodes to which the value of 1.0 has not been assigned at the step S 104 . 
     &lt;Rule Verification Process&gt; 
     A rule verification process according to the embodiment is now described referring to  FIG. 6  and  FIG. 7 . 
       FIG. 6  is a flow chart showing a process in a rule verification apparatus according to the embodiment. 
     The process shown in  FIG. 6  is initiated when the user  405  starts a design rule management program for a rule verification. 
     If, for example, the user  405  changes CAD data in the CAD system  401 , or changes a parameter of the analysis program  402  or a parameter of the analysis control program  403  and executes the analysis program  402  or the analysis control program  403 , shape parameter data, analysis parameter data and analysis control parameter data are changed accordingly. Then, the shape parameter acquire unit  201  acquires the changed shape parameter data from the CAD system  401  (S 301 ), the analysis parameter acquire unit  202  acquires the changed analysis parameter data from the analysis program  402  (S 302 ) and then the analysis control parameter acquire unit  203  acquires the changed analysis control parameter data from the analysis control program  403  (S 303 ). 
     It is to be understood that the processes of steps S 301  to S 303  are not necessarily executed in the above described order. 
     All the processes of the steps S 301  to S 303  does not have to be executed, and the embodiment can be realized if at least one of the processes is executed. 
     Next, the rule verification processing unit  204  searches for a rule which is related to the changed parameter data with reference to the integrating rule DB  300 , and performs a rule verification if the rule is detected (S 304 ). 
     More specifically, the rule verification processing unit  204  acquires all rule node data which are related to the changed parameter based on a parameter ID (attribute ID) contained in the acquired parameter with reference to the integrating rule DB  300 . Then, the rule verification processing unit  204  acquires from the acquired rule node data a related node ID of which relationship strength is 1.0, and further acquires the node ID of the node data indicated by the related ID and having “rule” in the node type (i.e. rule ID). Then, the rule verification processing unit  204  searches in a rule DB not shown and acquires all rule formulas corresponding to the rule IDs. The rule DB stores rule IDs, rule names, and rule formulas in a way that the rule ID, the rule names, and the rule formulas are related to each other. Then, the rule verification processing unit  204  performs the rule verification by applying the value of the acquired parameter to all the rule formulas which have been acquired. 
     After that, the rule verification result notification unit  205  displays a rule verification result which is the result of step S 304  (S 305 ). A rule verification result screen which shows the rule verification result at step S 305  is described below with reference to  FIG. 7 . 
       FIG. 7  is an example of the rule verification result screen shown at step S 305  in  FIG. 6 .  FIG. 7A  is an illustration showing an overall view of the rule verification result screen;  FIG. 7B  is an example of an icon which appears when some parameter violates one of the rules; and  FIG. 7C  is an example of an icon which appears when no parameter violates any rule. 
     In  FIGS. 7A to 7C , similar numerals are assigned to common elements, and the description thereof will be omitted. 
     As seen in  FIG. 7A , the rule verification result screen  601  includes a design work window  602  showing a work screen for each system and a task bar  603  at the bottom of the rule verification result screen  601 . In addition, a rule verification agent  604 , which is a resident program, is displayed as an icon in the task bar  603 . 
     The rule verification result screen  601  is a screen displayed on a display unit, not shown, of the rule verification apparatus  2 . 
     Systems such as the CAD system  401  and the analysis program  402  and the like send a parameter to the rule verification apparatus  2  whenever necessary while the systems are executed. The rule verification agent  604  monitors the parameter sent from the systems. When the rule verification agent  604  detects a change of the parameter, the rule verification agent  604  launches a rule verification program, and the rule verification apparatus  2  performs a rule verification by executing the processes of step S 301  to S 305  shown in  FIG. 6 . 
     When a rule violation is detected in the rule verification, the rule verification agent  604  notifies the rule verification result of a client computer as a message shown in  FIG. 7B . To be more specific, the rule verification agent  604  displays a message box  605  which is like a speech balloon and a message as shown in  FIG. 7B . A “Detail” button  607  for showing detailed error information is displayed in the message box  605 , and clicking the “Detail” button  607  with a mouse and the like displays the detailed error information. 
     If the rule violation is resolved or the rule violation is not detected when the rule verification is performed, a message in a message box  606  shown in  FIG. 7C  is displayed. 
     “Rest mode” may be provided with the rule verification agent  604  to stop each system from sending a parameter to the rule verification apparatus  2 . 
     The rule verification at step S 304  may not be completed in the rule verification processing unit  204  but the rule verification may be continued by returning a rule verification result and a parameter in question to each system and making each system send a parameter which is modified to the rule verification processing unit  204 . 
     For example, the CAD system  401  to which the rule verification result and the parameter is returned highlights a part where the rule violation occurs. Then, the user  405  changes a shape parameter at the highlighted part and send the changed shape parameter to the rule verification apparatus  2 . After that, the rule verification processing unit  204  of the rule verification apparatus  2  performs the rule verification on the sent shape parameter. This process may be repeated until no rule violation occurs. 
     Moreover, each system may search for other parameters that are affected by the returned parameter and highlight the affected parameters. 
       FIG. 8  is a configuration example of a rule verification system according to the embodiment. 
     A rule verification system  1001  includes the integrating rule DB  300 , a rule verification server  1002 , a user management DB  1003  and at least one client terminal (client  1005 ). The client  1005  and the rule verification server  1002  are connected via a network  1004  which is a LAN (Local Area Network) or a WAN (Wide Area Network). 
     The rule verification server  1002  differs from the rule verification apparatus  2  shown in  FIG. 2  in that the integrating rule DB  300  is an external apparatus, the rule verification result notification unit  205  has a function of sending the rule verification result to the client  1005  via the network  1004 , but the functions and processes of the other parts  201  to  204  (refer to  FIG. 2 ) are the same. 
     The user management DB  1003  stores information of a user  1006  (e.g. the MAC (Media Access Control) address of the client  1005  the user  1006  uses and a password used when the user  1006  accesses the rule verification server  1002 ). 
     The client  1005  has functions of receiving a rule verification result performed at the rule verification server  1002  via the network  1004  and displaying the check result to show the result to the user  1006 . The client  1005  may also have a function of the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402  and the analysis control program  403  shown in  FIG. 2 . 
     In  FIG. 8 , the integrating rule DB  300  and the user management DB  1003  are implemented in an apparatus other than the rule verification server  1002 , however, these DB  300  and  1003  may be incorporated in the rule verification server  1002 . 
     In the rule verification system  1001  shown in  FIG. 8 , the rule verification result screen  601  shown in  FIG. 7  is displayed on a screen of the client  1005 . 
     The rule verification result screen  601  in the rule verification system  1001  shown in  FIG. 8  is described below with reference to  FIG. 7 . 
     It is assumed that systems such as the CAD system  401  and the analysis program  402  and the like are implemented in the client  1005  in this example. Description of a case where the systems are implemented in an apparatus other than the client  1005  is the same as the description made referring to  FIG. 7  except that the apparatus and the client  1005  transmits and receives necessary information via the rule verification server  1002 , and thus the description thereof will be omitted. 
     While the systems such as the CAD system  401 , the analysis program  402  and the like are performed in the client  1005 , the rule verification agent  604  monitors parameters used in the systems. If one of the parameters is changed, the client  1005  sends the changed parameter to the rule verification server  1002 . Then, the rule verification server  1002  performs the rule verification, and if a rule violation is detected, the rule verification result notification unit  205  of the rule verification server  1002  (refer to  FIG. 2 ) notifies a rule verification result of the client  1005  as a message. The rule verification agent  604  receives the message from the server and displays the message box  605  which is like a speech balloon shown in  FIG. 7B  and the message. 
     When the rule violation is resolved or no rule violation is detected when the rule verification is performed, the rule verification result notification unit  205  (refer to  FIG. 2 ) of the rule verification server  1002  notifies the rule verification result of the client  1005  as a message. Then, the client  1005  displays the message shown in  FIG. 7C  in the message box  606 . 
     In accordance with the present invention, it is possible to recognize the design rules which are substantially the same but described as different design rules in different systems as the same design rule. Thus, it is no more necessary to perform a rule verification in each system when a parameter is changed in a different system. 
     The embodiments according to the present invention have been explained as aforementioned. However, the embodiments of the present invention are not limited to those explanations, and those skilled in the art ascertain the essential characteristics of the present invention and cam make the various modifications and variations to the present invention to adapt it to various usages and conditions without departing from the spirit and scope of the claims.