The document discusses semantic gaps that occur in multi-domain engineering. It defines a semantic gap as a difference in meaning between constructs formed in different representation systems. Three main semantic gaps are identified: between stakeholders and engineers, within a single engineering domain, and between different engineering domains. The document proposes some methods for bridging these gaps, such as finding analogies, visual representations, and increasing shared understanding through documentation in a standardized language like SysML. It also discusses limitations to fully bridging inter-domain understanding.

1. Identification and Bridging of Semantic Gaps: The Case of Multi-Domain Engineering Andreas M. Hein Institute of Astronautics, Technical University of Munich Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010, Golden, Colorado

2. Content 1. Context: Frequent problems in Multi-Domain Engineering 2. Introduction to the Semantic Gap (SG) 3. Semantic Gaps in Multi-Domain Engineering 4. Limits to inter-domain understanding 5. Conclusion 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

3. 1. Context: Frequent problems in Multi-Domain Engineering What is an engineering domain? - Mainly dependent on engineering curriculum (already interdisciplinary) - Constantly shifting and fuzzy borders (mechatronics, bionics) Frequent problems in Multi-Domain Engineering: - Engineer does not understand customer needs - Design engineer and production engineer miss opportunities - Engineers from different domains have difficulties to understand each other What is common to these problems? (commonly refered to „communication“ problem) 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

4. 2. Introduction to the Semantic Gap “ A “semantic gap” is the difference in meaning between constructs formed within different representation systems .” Example: [1] 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010 Human understanding Machine understanding

5. 2. Introduction to the Semantic Gap 10.05.2010 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering

6. How to close the gap? Goal: Increase the synonymy of the constructs! 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

7. 3. Semantic Gaps in Multi-Domain Engineering 10.05.2010 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering

8. Between stakeholder and engineer 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

9. Close the gap between stakeholder and engineer 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

10. What is SysML ? [3] 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010 1 Structure 2 Behaviour 3 Requirements 4 Parameter

11. Within an engineering domain 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

12. Close the gap within an domain 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

13. Feature Based CAD/CAM feature = geometry + semantics [2] Example: blind borehole Geometric form: Cylinder with cone at the end (diameter, length, angle) Semantics: hole that is made of a drill, does not go entirely through the material 10.05.2010 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering

14. Between Engineering Domains 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

15. Bridging of the Inter-Domain Gap What does usually happen? - Searching for analogies (similar structures) in natural language - Display ideas in drawings, using common objects (boxes, relations) - Increase the synonymy of each others mental representations („cognitive synchronization“) - Domain specific documentation New development: Integrated documentation in SysML framework 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

16. Close the gaps between engineering domains 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

17. Example using SysML [4] 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

18. Example using SysML 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

19. 5. Limits to inter-domain understanding Expert – Novice difference: Is this diagram gramatically correct? (SysML knowledge required) Is the (propositional) content making sense? (domain-knowledge required) Economy How much effort does it take to convey the knowledge? How important is the knowledge? Are people willing to learn new „vocabulary“? 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

20. 6. Conclusion Many problems in engineering can be associated with the notion „Semantic Gap “ Three characteristic Semantic Gaps in Multi-Domain Engineering How to bridge these gaps How the understanding between domains works and can be improved The limits of inter-domain understanding 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

21. Thank you for your attention! Andreas Hein Institute of Astronautics Technical University of Munich [email_address] 25.05.10 Workshop Philosophy & Engineering 2010

22. References [1] Spinczyk, O. (2008) Betriebssysteme, Rechnernetze und verteilte Systeme 1 (BSRvS1) Zusammenfassung und Ausblick. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://ess.cs.uni-dortmund.de/Teaching/SS2008/BSRvS1/Downloads/14-Zusammenfassung-Ausblick-1x2.pdf [2] Shah, J.J., Mäntylä, M. (1995). Parametric and Feature Based CAD/CAM. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [3] Object Management Group, Systems Modeling Language Specification v.1.1, http://www.omgsysml.org [4] All SysML diagrams are drawn with the MagicDraw SysML plugin software