Morphos Configuration Engine: the Core of a Commercial Configuration System in CLP(FD)

• Autorzy: Campagna D. , De Rosa C. , Dovier A. , Montanari A. , Piazza C.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Product configuration systems are an emerging software technology that supports companies in deploying mass customization strategies. In this paper, we describe a CLP-based reasoning engine that we developed for a commercial configuration system. We first illustrate the advantages of the CLP approach to product configuration over other ones. Then, we describe the actual encoding of the considered product configuration problem as a constraint satisfaction problem. We devote a special attention to the key issues of constraint propagation and optimization as well as to the relevant process of assignment revision. A comparison with existing systems for product configuration concludes the paper.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

product configuration; case-based reasoning; constraint programming; MCE Product Model

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 105, nr 1/2
• Strony: 105--133
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Campagna D.

autor

De Rosa C.

autor

Dovier A.

autor

Montanari A.

autor

Piazza C.

• Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Udine, Italy,

Bibliografia

• [1] Aldanondo, M., Vareilles, E.: Configuration for mass customization: how to extend product configuration towards requirements and process configuration, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(5), 2008, 521-535.
• [2] Aldanondo, M., Vareilles, E., Djefel, M., Gaborit, P.: Towards an association of product configuration with production planning, in: Proceedings of ECAI 2008 Workshop on Configuration Systems, University of Patras, 2008, 41-46.
• [3] Amilhastre, J., Fargier, H., Marquis, P.: Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPs- Application to configuration, Artificial Intelligence, 135(1-2), 2002, 199 - 234.
• [4] Apt, K., Wallace, M.: Constraint Logic Programming using Eclipse, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• [5] Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: Kumbang: A domain ontology for modeling variability in software product families, Adv. Eng. Inform., 21(1), 2007, 23-40.
• [6] Barker, V. E., O'Connor, D. E., Bachant, J., Soloway, E.: Expert systems for configuration at Digital: XCON and beyond, Communications of the ACM, 32(3), 1989, 298-318.
• [7] Calligaris, A., Campagna, D., De Rosa, C., Dovier, A., Montanari, A., Piazza, C.: A CLP engine for a general purpose configuration tool, in: Proc. of the 24th Italian Conference on Computational Logic (CILC) (M. Gavanelli, F. Riguzzi, Eds.), University of Ferrara, Italy, 2009.
• [8] CLA group, IT-University of Copenhagen: Clib: configuration benchmarks library, http://www.itu.dk/research/cla/externals/clib/.
• [9] Configit A/S, http:==www.configit.com=products=configit product modeler.html: Configit Product Modeler, 2009.
• [10] Estévez-Martın, S., Fernández, A., Hortalá-González, T., Rodrıguez-Artalejo, M., Sáenz-Pérez, M., del Vado-V´ırseda, R.: A proposal for the cooperation of solvers in constraint functional logic programming, ENTCS, 188, 2007, 37-51.
• [11] Fleischanderl, G., Friedrich, G., Haselböck, A., Schreiner, H., Stumptner, M.: Configuring Large Systems Using Generative Constraint Satisfaction, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(4), 1998, 59-68.
• [12] Frayman, F., Mittal, S.: COSSACK: A Constraint-Based Expert System for Configuration Tasks, Knowledge-Based Expert Systems in Engineering: Planning and Design, 1987, 143-166.
• [13] Freuder, E., Likitvivatanavong, C., Moretti, M., Rossi, F., Wallace, R.: Computing explanations and implications in preference-based configurators, In Barry O'Sullivan, editor, Recent Advances in Constraints, volume 2627 of LNAI, pages 76-92., 2003.
• [14] Friedrich, G., Stumptner, M.: Consistency-based configuration, in: Proc. of the AAAI'99 Workshop on Configuration, AAAI Press, 1999, 35-40.
• [15] Hadzic, T., Subbarayan, S., Jensen, R. M., Andersen, H. R., Moller, J., Hulgaard, H.: Fast backtrack-free product configuration using a precompiled solution space representation, in: Proc. of the International Conference on Economic, Technical and Organizational Aspects of Product Configuration Systems, 2004, 131-138.
• [16] Juengst, W. E., Heinrich, M.: Using resource balancing to configure modular systems, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(4), 1998, 50-58.
• [17] Junker, U.: The Logic of ILOG (J)Configurator: Combining Constraint Programming with a Description Logic, in: Proc. of the IJCAI'03 Workshop on Configuration, 2003, 13-20.
• [18] Junker, U.: Handbook of Constraint Progrmming, chapter 24. Configuration, Elsevier, 2006, 837-873.
• [19] Kulvatunyou, B., Wysk, R. A., Cho, H., Jones, A.: Integration framework of process planning based on resource independent operation summary to support collaborative manufacturing, Int. J. Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17(5), 2004, 377-393.
• [20] Martins, J. P.: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: An indexed bibliography to the literature of truth maintenance systems, AI Mag., 11(5), 1991, 7-25.
• [21] Mascardi, V., Locoro, A., Rosso, P.: Automatic Ontology Matching via Upper Ontologies: A Systematic Evaluation, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 22(5), 2010, 609-623.
• [22] McDermott, J. P.: R1: A rule-based configurer of computer systems, Artificial Intelligence, 19, 1982, 39-88.
• [23] McGuinness, D. L., Wright, J. R.: Conceptual modelling for configuration: A description logic based approach, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12(4), 1998, 333-344.
• [24] Mittal, S., Falkenhainer, B.: Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems, in: Proc. of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1990, 25-32.
• [25] Mittal, S., Frayman, F.: Making Partial Choices in Constraint Reasoning Problems, Proc. of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1987, 631-636.
• [26] Mittal, S., Frayman, F.: Towards a generic model of configuration tasks, in: Proc. of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 1989, 1395-1401.
• [27] Myllärniemi, V., Asikainen, T., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: Kumbang configurator - a configurator tool for software product families, in: Proc. of the IJCAI'05 Workshop on Configuration, 2005, 51-56.
• [28] Nielsen, J., Kimura, F.: A Resource Capability Model to Support Product Family Analysis, JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing, 49(2), 2006, 568-575.
• [29] Sabin, D., Freuder, E. C.: Configuration as Composite Constraint Satisfaction, in: Proc. of the 1st Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop (G. F. Luger, Ed.), AAAI Press, 1996, 153-161.
• [30] Sabin, D., Weigel, R.: Product configuration frameworks - a survey, Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE [see also IEEE Intelligent Systems], 13(4), Jul/Aug 1998, 42-49.
• [31] Schierholt, K.: Process configuration: Combining the principles of product configuration and process planning, Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 15(5), 2001, 411-424.
• [32] Simons, P., Niemelä, H., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable models semantics, Artificial Intelligence, 138(1-2), 2002, 181-234.
• [33] Sinz, C., Kaiser, A., Küchlin, W.: Formal methods for the validation of automotive product configuration data, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 17(1), 2003, 75-97.
• [34] Soininen, T., Gelle, E., Niemelä, I.: A fixpoint definition of dynamic constraint satisfaction, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 1999, 419-433.
• [35] Soininen, T., Niemel, I., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Unified configuration knowledge representation using weight constraint rules, in: Proc. of the ECAI'00 Workshop on Configuration, 2000, 79-84.
• [36] Stumptner, M., Friedrich, G., Haselbök, A.: Generative constraint based configuration of large technical systems, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12(4), 1998, 307-320.
• [37] Subbarayan, S.: Integrating CSP Decomposition Techniques and BDDs for Compiling Configuration Problems, in: Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (R. Barták, M. Milano, Eds.), vol. 3524 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin /Heidelberg, 2005, 351-365.
• [38] Subbarayan, S., Jensen, R. M., Hadzic, T., Andersen, H. R., Hulgaard, H., M˜A¸ller, J.: Comparing Two Implementations of a Complete and Backtrack-Free Interactive Configurator, in: Proc. of CSPIA Workshop, at CP'04, 2004, 97-111.
• [39] Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Intelligent Systems Laboratory: SICStus Prolog User's Manual, 4.0.3 edition, May 2008.
• [40] Thorsteinsson, E. S., Ottosson, G.: Linear relaxations and reduced-cost based propagation of continuous variable subscripts, Annals of Operations Research, 115, 2002, 15-29.
• [41] Tseng, H.-E., Chang, C.-C., Chang, S.-H.: Applying case-based reasoning for product configuration in mass customization environments, Expert Systems with Applications, 29(4), 2005, 913-925.
• [42] University of Amsterdam, Human-Computer Studies: SWI-Prolog 5.6 Reference Manual, August 2008.
• [43] Zheng, L., Dong, H., Vichare, P., Nassehi, A., Newman, S.: Systematic modeling and reusing of process knowledge for rapid process configuration, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 24(6), 2008, 763 - 772.