A system and method for requirements analysis in ship design

Abstract

One of the technical solutions of the present application is to provide a requirement analysis system in ship design. Another technical solution of the present application is to provide a requirement analysis method in ship design. The present application comprehensively uses MBSE, DoDAF and ontology technology to provide a requirement analysis system and method for ship design, fills the blank of actual requirement analysis oriented to task scene, and improves the systematization, completeness, rationality, standardization, consistency and traceability of ship requirements. The present application can improve the technical index requirements of ship equipment, provide reliable basis for subsequent design, analysis, verification and confirmation work, is beneficial to improve the satisfaction degree of ship overall scheme to actual requirements, and further improves the overall efficiency of ship equipment. The present application has important significance for improving the positive design level of ship equipment.

Description

A requirement analysis system and method in ship design TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to a requirement analysis system and method in ship design, and belongs to the field of ship design. BACKGROUND

[0002] Ship refers to a vehicle for transportation or operation in water area, including various military ships, transport ships, engineering ships, fishing ships and the like. These ships play an important role in the equipment system of sea combat, waterway transportation and ocean engineering.

[0003] Forward design of ship equipment refers to an advanced design paradigm guided by system engineering theory and process model, facing business scenarios such as task concept innovation, design concept innovation, new equipment development and pedigree equipment modification, involving requirement, design, analysis, verification and confirmation activities in the stages of conceptual design, preliminary design, detailed design and production design. Among them, requirement is the key guide and core baseline of each design stage and each design task, and is in the form of task requirement and system requirement throughout the whole process of ship forward design. Therefore, it is of great significance to establish a requirement baseline that is systematic, scientific, accurate, normative and agile, to improve the quality of ship design, save design cost, shorten design cycle and control design risk.

[0004] In the current ship forward design process, the designer usually takes a few main performance indicators proposed by the ship owner as the starting point of design, comprehensively uses professional knowledge, design experience and parent ship data to carry out requirement analysis, preliminarily forms various system technical requirements facing test verification, then takes meeting the system technical requirements and related specification standard constraints as the goal, gradually carries out scheme design, comprehensive trade-off and iterative optimization work, so as to obtain a preliminary design scheme meeting the requirements of the ship owner, then carries out simulation, verification, evaluation and decision-making work for these design schemes, and finally obtains an optimal ship design scheme satisfying all parties.

[0005] In the process of ship demand analysis, natural language description and interactive demand information are usually used to record, transfer and manage demand information through text documents. However, natural language has non-standard and polysemy, and it is difficult to establish the correlation between demand elements through text documents, which is not conducive to the standardization of demand description, the consistency of understanding and the agile management of changes. More importantly, the lack of model-based decomposition methods and verification methods makes it difficult to ensure the scientificity and accuracy of the demand, and the lack of task-oriented actual demand analysis makes it difficult to ensure the systematicness and completeness of the demand. This results in a mismatch between ship design requirements and actual demand, ultimately leading to poor performance of the optimal solution in the design state in the actual task. As a result, in recent years, the lack of adaptability to complex environments and the lack of human factors engineering design have exposed practical problems, which have seriously affected the shipowner's satisfaction with the delivered ship.

[0006] With the increasing size and complexity of systems, traditional system engineering methods have been difficult to meet the needs of large ship forward design. In recent years, the Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) method, which replaces documents with models as information carriers and replaces physical tests with virtual verification, has been widely used, providing important support for the innovative development of complex system forward design paradigm. MBSE changes from document-centered to model-centered, providing support for complex system demand, design, analysis, verification and confirmation activities through formal modeling and continuous evolution of models. MBSE organizes and manages information and data in the system development process through an integrated model system, and presents it to different stakeholders in different views. This not only ensures the complete acquisition, reasonable decomposition, sufficient verification, accurate transmission, standard description, consistent understanding and agile management of demand, but also provides a visual integrated design communication platform for relevant personnel, promoting efficient iteration of the system development process. Currently, MBSE has been popularized and applied in the fields of aviation, aerospace and vehicle engineering. A large number of engineering practice cases have fully verified that MBSE is an effective means to cope with system complexity, which can effectively support demand, design, analysis, verification and confirmation activities in the whole life cycle of complex systems.

[0007] Currently, the mainstream MBSE methodologies include Harmony SE, MagicGrid, Acradia, OOSEM (Object-Oriented Systems Engineering Method), OPM (Object Process Methodology), Vitech, etc. In addition, due to the strong capability of complex system modeling and analysis of DoDAF (Department of Defense Architecture Framework), researchers proposed MBSE methods based on DoDAF and applied them to equipment development tasks. DoDAF is the most mature and leading architecture framework in the world, which is widely used in system capability analysis, architecture design, interoperability analysis, etc. DoDAF can meet the needs of related personnel in different fields and different professions to establish all-around and multi-perspective DoDAF models under the constraint of unified specification guidelines, to ensure the comprehensive and unified cognition of users, designers and decision makers on complex systems, and to transfer important information described by DoDAF models to specific personnel on this basis, to realize orderly information sharing and to improve the ability of key analysis and decision-making. DoDAF V2.0 and subsequent versions change from product-centered to data-centered, which can capture the association between model data while ensuring the consistency of DoDAF model information, thereby providing support for system logic tracing and system defect analysis, etc.

[0008] DoDAF neither limits the implementation form of the model nor specifies the minimum model set, so the development of DoDAF models based on DoDAF has strong flexibility, which also makes the customized application of DoDAF possible. However, DoDAF only gives the basic principles and general methods for developing DoDAF models, but does not give specific methodologies for developing DoDAF models, so it is still necessary to adapt DoDAF to the actual situation of the field around the development purpose of DoDAF models, to further clarify the required models and the specific modeling process, and to establish a DoDAF modeling methodology that adapts to specific purposes. SUMMARY

[0009] The technical problems to be solved by the present application are: the demand analysis concept, method and means in current ship design are relatively backward, which seriously restricts the positive design level of ship equipment. Especially, the importance of actual ship demand is far from enough, there are problems such as incomplete demand acquisition, unreasonable decomposition, insufficient verification, non-standard description, inconsistent understanding, slow change response, etc., resulting in incomplete and systematic ship equipment technical indicators, unscientific and inaccurate technical requirements, low iteration efficiency of scheme design, insufficient basis for scheme evaluation and decision, uncontrollable quality and cost cycle risk, and finally leading to low satisfaction of ship owner to the delivered ship. With the increasing size and complexity of the system, the traditional system engineering method which relies heavily on experience and documents is more and more difficult to meet the requirements of positive design of ship equipment, and it is urgent to establish a demand analysis method and system suitable for large-scale ship complex equipment. Although a large number of engineering practice cases have fully verified that MBSE is an effective means to cope with system complexity, and can effectively support the demand, design, analysis, verification and confirmation activities of complex system in the whole life cycle stage, but its application field mainly concentrates in the field of aviation, aerospace and vehicle engineering, and there is no successful practice case in ship design field, especially in demand analysis work. Although DoDAF has strong modeling and analysis capability for complex systems, there is currently a lack of specific methodology for complex system demand analysis, so it is still necessary to adaptively tailor DoDAF around the purpose of ship equipment demand analysis, combined with the characteristics of ship design field, to clarify the required models and specific modeling process, and further establish the MBSE method of ship actual demand analysis based on DoDAF, effectively improve the completeness of demand acquisition, the rationality of decomposition, the sufficiency of verification, the standardization of description, the consistency of understanding, the rapid response of change, and provide reliable basis for subsequent ship design, analysis, verification and confirmation work.

[0010] To solve the above technical problems, one of the technical solutions of the present application is to provide a demand analysis system in ship design, characterized in that it comprises:

[0011] A demand ontology construction module is configured to: analyze the conceptual connotation of actual task demand of the ship; construct an actual task demand ontology model of the ship according to the conceptual connotation of the actual task demand of the ship; analyze the conceptual connotation of actual system demand of the ship; construct an actual system demand ontology model of the ship according to the conceptual connotation of the actual system demand of the ship; establish a mapping relationship between elements of the actual task demand ontology model of the ship and elements of the DoDAF meta-model according to the conceptual data model of the DoDAF meta-model; and establish a mapping relationship between elements of the actual system demand ontology model of the ship and elements of the DoDAF meta-model according to the mapping relationship between the core concept primitives of the business view and the system view of the DoDAF meta-model.

[0012] The field ontology construction module is configured to: sort out professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements of ship design; construct an extensible ship design field ontology model according to the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements of ship design; and establish a ship actual demand mapping decomposition model centered on activities according to the extensible ship design field ontology model, so as to establish a mapping decomposition and verification method for ship actual demand.

[0013] The DoDAF framework management module is configured to: establish formalized descriptions of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model; traverse all DoDAF model meta-models in the DoDAF data dictionary in units of elements of the formalized descriptions of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model, and filter out all DoDAF models describing the elements, so as to obtain DoDAF models applicable to ship actual task demand analysis and ship actual system demand analysis; establish formalized descriptions of the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to ship actual task demand analysis and ship actual system demand analysis one by one according to the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary; establish constraint relationship networks among the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to ship actual task demand analysis and ship actual system demand analysis one by one according to the definition rules of various constraint relationships and the properties of the modeling elements of the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary; and simplify the constraint relationship networks among the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to ship actual task demand analysis and ship actual system demand analysis according to the simplification rules of various constraint relationships, so as to establish a DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual demand analysis.

[0014] The requirement modeling verification module is configured to: establish a DoDAF model for ship actual demand analysis by using the DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual demand analysis and the mapping decomposition and verification method for ship actual demand.

[0015] The requirement maintenance management module is used for: extracting the actual ship task requirements, the actual ship system requirements and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween from the DoDAF model of the actual ship requirement analysis according to the formalized description of the actual ship task requirement ontology model adapting to the DoDAF meta-model and the formalized description of the actual ship system requirement ontology model adapting to the DoDAF meta-model; establishing the traceability relationship between the actual ship task requirement elements and the actual ship system requirement elements according to the actual ship task requirements, the actual ship system requirements and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween; directly displaying the selected actual ship requirement elements and the actual ship requirement element network associated therewith in a diversified form such as a graph and a matrix according to the traceability relationship between the actual ship task requirement elements and the actual ship system requirement elements; directly maintaining and managing the selected actual ship requirement elements and the actual ship requirement elements associated therewith, quickly responding to requirement changes and minimizing the influence of requirement changes; synchronizing all changes of the actual ship requirement elements to the DoDAF model of the actual ship requirement analysis in real time, ensuring the consistency and standardization of the actual ship requirement elements; and compiling the overall technical requirements of the ship and the system technical requirements of the ship including the actual ship task requirements, the actual ship system requirements and the traceability relationship between the actual ship requirement elements.

[0016] Preferably, the concept connotation of the actual ship task requirement is summarized as: the requirement for the expected effect of task execution under the actual subject, actual resources, actual operation conditions and actual operation rules in the whole task, whole process and whole activity.

[0017] Preferably, the concept connotation of the actual ship system requirement is summarized as: the requirement for the expected effect of system operation under the actual system, actual resources, actual operation conditions and actual operation rules in the whole activity, whole logic and whole function.

[0018] Preferably, the mapping relationship between the actual ship requirement ontology model elements and the DoDAF meta-model elements is represented in the following table:

[0019] .

[0020] Preferably, the formalized description of the actual ship task requirement ontology model adapting to the DoDAF meta-model is: actual ship task requirement = {activity (task, process), organization (subject), resource, condition, rule, expected effect}.

[0021] Preferably, the formalized description of the actual ship system requirement ontology model adapting to the DoDAF meta-model is: actual ship system requirement = {function (activity, logic), system, resource, condition, rule, expected effect}.

[0022] Preferably, the DoDAF model applicable to the actual ship task requirement analysis and the actual ship system requirement analysis is represented in the following table:

[0023] .

[0024] Preferably, assuming there are two meta-models A = A n ∪A * , B = B n ∪B * , A≠B, the following four types of constraint relationships are defined:

[0025] Constraint relationship 1: irrelevant, There is no common modeling element between meta-model A and B;

[0026] Constraint relationship 2: weakly related, There is no common essential class modeling element between meta-model A and B, but there is a common optional class modeling element;

[0027] Constraint relationship 3: collaboration, There is a common essential class modeling element between meta-model A and B;

[0028] Constraint relationship 4: dependency, The meta-model A is a subset of the essential class modeling element set of B.

[0029] Preferably, according to the following seven constraint relationship simplification rules, the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF model applicable to the actual task demand analysis and the actual system demand analysis of the ship is simplified, and the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the actual demand analysis of the ship is established.

[0030] Simplification rule 1: if meta-model A is irrelevant to B, there is no constraint relationship between models A and B in terms of modeling sequence;

[0031] Simplification rule 2: if meta-model A is weakly related to B, and Model A has a higher priority than model B, that is, model A is established first, and vice versa;

[0032] Simplification rule 3: if meta-model A and B collaborate with each other, models A and B can be established;

[0033] Simplification rule 4: if meta-model A depends on B, model B has a higher priority than model A, that is, model B is established first, and vice versa;

[0034] Simplification rule 5: among the four constraint relationships of irrelevant, weakly related, collaboration, and dependency, the dependency relationship has the highest priority, and the other three constraint relationships can be selectively ignored;

[0035] Simplified rule 6: if there are multiple meta-models with higher priority than A at the same time, select the nearest model as the constraint relationship action object;

[0036] Simplified rule 7: if the constraint relationship between the meta-models constitutes a loop, the constraint relationship needs to be simplified according to the specific situation.

[0037] Another technical scheme of the present application provides a requirement analysis method in ship design, characterized in that it comprises the following steps:

[0038] Step 1: analyze the conceptual connotation of the actual task requirement of the ship;

[0039] Step 2: according to the conceptual connotation of the actual task requirement of the ship analyzed in step 1, construct an actual task requirement ontology model of the ship;

[0040] Step 3: analyze the conceptual connotation of the actual system requirement of the ship;

[0041] Step 4: according to the conceptual connotation of the actual system requirement of the ship analyzed in step 3, construct an actual system requirement ontology model of the ship;

[0042] Step 5: according to the actual task requirement ontology model of the ship constructed in step 2 and the conceptual data model of the DoDAF meta-model, establish the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual task requirement ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model;

[0043] Step 6: according to the mapping relationship between the core concept primitives of the business view and the system view of the DoDAF meta-model in step 4, establish the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual system requirement ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model;

[0044] Step 7: according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual task requirement ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model established in step 5, establish the formal description of the actual task requirement ontology model of the ship adapting to the DoDAF meta-model;

[0045] Step 8: according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual system requirement ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model established in step 6, establish the formal description of the actual system requirement ontology model of the ship adapting to the DoDAF meta-model;

[0046] Step 9, taking the elements of the formalized description of the adapted DoDAF meta-model of the ship actual mission requirement ontology model and the ship actual system requirement ontology model established in steps 7 and 8 as units, traversing all the meta-models of the DoDAF models in the DoDAF data dictionary, and screening out all the DoDAF models describing the elements, thereby obtaining the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis;

[0047] Step 10, taking the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis screened out in step 9 as units, establishing the formalized description of the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis screened out in step 9 one by one according to the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary;

[0048] Step 11, taking the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis screened out in step 9 as units, establishing the constraint relationship networks among the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis screened out in step 9 one by one according to the definition rules of various constraint relationships and in combination with the attributes of the modeling elements of the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary;

[0049] Step 12, simplifying the constraint relationship networks among the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual mission requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis screened out in step 9 established in step 11 according to the simplification rules of various constraint relationships, thereby establishing the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the ship actual requirement analysis;

[0050] Step 13, sorting out the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements in the ship design;

[0051] Step 14, constructing the extensible ship design field ontology model according to the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements sorted out in step 13;

[0052] Step 15, establishing the ship actual requirement mapping decomposition model centered on activities according to the extensible ship design field ontology model constructed in step 14, thereby establishing the mapping decomposition and verification method for the ship actual requirement;

[0053] Step 16, using the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the ship actual requirement analysis established in steps 1-12 and the mapping decomposition and verification method for the ship actual requirement established in steps 13-15, establishing the DoDAF model for the ship actual requirement analysis;

[0054] Step 17, according to the formalized description of the ship actual task requirement ontology model adapting the DoDAF meta-model established in step 7 and the formalized description of the ship actual system requirement ontology model adapting the DoDAF meta-model established in step 8, the ship actual task requirement, the ship actual system requirement and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween are extracted from the DoDAF model of the ship actual requirement analysis established in step 16;

[0055] Step 18, according to the ship actual task requirement, the ship actual system requirement and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween extracted in step 17, the traceability relationship between the ship actual task requirement elements and the ship actual system requirement elements is established, and finally the ship overall technical requirement and the ship system technical requirement containing the ship actual task requirement, the ship actual system requirement and the traceability relationship between the ship actual requirement elements are prepared.

[0056] The present application comprehensively uses MBSE, DoDAF and ontology technology, provides a requirement analysis system and method for ship design, fills the blank of actual requirement analysis oriented to task scene, and improves the systematization, completeness, rationality, standardization, consistency and traceability of ship requirements. The present application can perfect the technical index requirement of ship equipment, provides reliable basis for subsequent design, analysis, verification and confirmation work, is beneficial to improve the satisfaction degree of ship overall scheme to actual requirements, and further improves the overall efficiency of ship equipment. The present application has important significance for improving the positive design level of ship equipment. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0057] Fig. 1 illustrates a requirement analysis system for ship design;

[0058] Fig. 2 illustrates an overall technical scheme of a requirement analysis method for ship design;

[0059] Fig. 3 illustrates a concept data model of a DoDAF meta-model;

[0060] Fig. 4 illustrates a DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual requirement analysis;

[0061] Fig. 5 illustrates an activity-centered ship actual requirement mapping decomposition model. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0062] The present application will be further described below in conjunction with specific embodiments. It should be understood that these embodiments are only used to illustrate the present application and not used to limit the scope of the present application. In addition, it should be understood that after reading the content taught by the present application, those skilled in the art can make various modifications or changes to the present application, and these equivalent forms also fall within the scope defined by the appended claims of the present application.

[0063] I. Conceptual connotation and ontology model of ship actual requirement

[0064] The actual demand of the ship refers to actual task demand and actual system demand of the ship put forward by shipborne equipment, shipborne system, personnel and other context environment in actual task scene.

[0065] (I) actual task demand

[0066] The actual task demand refers to the instantiation result of task elements in actual task scene. Task elements mainly include tasks, processes, activities, subjects, resources, conditions, rules, expected effects and the like. Therefore, the concept connotation of the actual task demand of the ship is summarized as: the requirement of the expected effect of task execution under the actual subject, actual resource, actual operation condition and actual operation rule of the whole task, whole process, whole activity. On this basis, the actual task demand ontology model of the ship is constructed.

[0067] Actual task demand of the ship = <task, process, activity, subject, resource, condition, rule, expected effect>.

[0068] (II) actual system demand

[0069] The system demand is part of the task demand, and the subject of the system demand is the ship platform and shipborne system, that is, the part of the task demand related to the ship platform and shipborne system is converted into the system demand of the ship platform and shipborne system. The actual system demand is part of the actual task demand, and refers to the instantiation result of system elements in actual task scene. System elements mainly include activities, logic, functions, systems, resources, conditions, rules, expected effects. Therefore, the concept connotation of the actual system demand of the ship is summarized as: the requirement of the expected effect of system operation under the actual system, actual resource, actual operation condition and actual operation rule of the whole activity, whole logic, whole function. On this basis, the actual system demand ontology model of the ship is constructed.

[0070] Actual system demand of the ship = <activity, logic, function, system, resource, condition, rule, expected effect>.

[0071] II. DoDAF modeling and verification method of actual demand analysis of the ship

[0072] Based on the analysis of the concept connotation of the actual demand of the ship and the construction of the actual demand ontology model of the ship, the actual demand modeling method of the ship based on DoDAF is established, the actual demand elements of the ship are comprehensively described, the mutual verification and traceability relationship therebetween is established, so as to provide the system comprehensive, standard consistent, visual and traceable information support for the stakeholders, and lay a foundation for the reasonable decomposition of the actual task demand and the actual system demand.

[0073] According to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model, a DoDAF model suitable for ship actual demand analysis is selected; then according to the constraint relationship between the meta-models of the selected DoDAF model, a DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual demand analysis is established.

[0074] (I) DoDAF model selection method suitable for ship actual demand analysis

[0075] Fig. 3 is a conceptual data model of the DoDAF meta-model, which gives the core concept primitives of the DoDAF meta-model and their mutual relationship. First, according to the ship actual task demand ontology model and the conceptual data model of the DoDAF meta-model, the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model is established (see Table 1); then according to the mapping relationship between the core concept primitives of the business view and the system view of the DoDAF meta-model, the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual system demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model is established (see Table 1).

[0076] Table 1 Mapping relationship between elements of ship actual demand ontology model and elements of DoDAF meta-model

[0077]

[0078] On this basis, according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model, the formal description of the ship actual task demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model is established; according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual system demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model, the formal description of the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model is established; both of which are used as the basis for selecting DoDAF model for ship actual demand analysis.

[0079] Formal description of the ship actual task demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model:

[0080] Ship actual task demand = {activity (task, process), organization (subject), resource, condition, rule, expected effect}

[0081] Formal description of the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model:

[0082] Ship actual system demand = {function (activity, logic), system, resource, condition, rule, expected effect}

[0083] The elements of the formalized description of the ship actual task requirement ontology model and the ship actual system requirement ontology model which are adapted to the DoDAF meta-model are taken as units, the meta-models of the 52 DoDAF models in the DoDAF data dictionary are traversed, and all the DoDAF models describing the elements are screened out, so that the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis are obtained, as shown in Table 2.

[0084] Table 2 DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis

[0085]

[0086] (II) DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual requirement analysis

[0087] On this basis, according to the constraint relationship between the meta-models of the selected DoDAF models, a DoDAF modeling methodology suitable for the purpose of ship actual requirement analysis is established.

[0088] First, the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis are taken as units, the modeling elements of the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary are divided into two categories: necessary and optional, and the formalized description of the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis is established one by one.

[0089]

[0090] In the formula, m i is the modeling element of the meta-model of the selected DoDAF model, i=1,2,...,q, M n ={m1,m2,...,m p} is the necessary element, is the optional modeling element, and obviously

[0091] Then, the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis are taken as units, the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task requirement analysis and the ship actual system requirement analysis is established one by one according to the definition rules of the constraint relationship and the properties of the modeling elements of the meta-models of the DoDAF models described in the DoDAF data dictionary.

[0092] Suppose there are two meta-models A=A n ∪A * , B=Bn ∪B * , A≠B, define the following four kinds of constraint relationship:

[0093] Constraint relationship 1: irrelevant, There is no common modeling element between meta-model A and B.

[0094] Constraint relationship 2: weakly related, There is no common necessary class modeling element between meta-model A and B, but there is a common optional class modeling element.

[0095] Constraint relationship 3: cooperation, There is a common necessary class modeling element between meta-model A and B.

[0096] Constraint relationship 4: dependency, Meta-model A is a subset of the necessary class modeling element set of B.

[0097] Then, according to the following seven constraint relationship simplification rules, the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF model suitable for ship actual task demand analysis and ship actual system demand analysis is simplified, and the DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual demand analysis is established.

[0098] Simplification rule 1: if meta-model A and B are irrelevant, there is no modeling sequence constraint relationship between model A and B.

[0099] Simplification rule 2: if meta-model A and B are weakly related, and Model A has a higher priority than model B, that is, model A is established first, and vice versa.

[0100] Simplification rule 3: if meta-model A and B cooperate with each other, model A and B can be established.

[0101] Simplification rule 4: if meta-model A depends on B, model B has a higher priority than model A, that is, model B is established first, and vice versa.

[0102] Simplification rule 5: among the four constraint relationships of irrelevant, weakly related, cooperative and dependent, the dependent relationship has the highest priority, and the other three constraint relationships can be selectively ignored.

[0103] Simplification rule 6: if there are multiple meta-models with a higher priority than A, select the nearest model as the constraint relationship action object.

[0104] Simplification rule 7: if the constraint relationship between the meta-models forms a loop, the constraint relationship needs to be simplified according to the specific situation.

[0105] So far, the DoDAF modeling and verification method for ship actual demand analysis is established (see Figure 4), and the main steps are as follows.

[0106] (1) AV-1, AV-2

[0107] AV-1 describes the main information of the project, including: overview, project source, background information, task target, design information, design scope, assumption, limitation, summary, reference, etc., so that relevant personnel can quickly grasp the core content of the project and provide guidance for project research. AV-2 defines the relevant data in the modeling process to form a data dictionary.

[0108] (2) CV-1

[0109] CV-1 describes the overall capability concept of ship equipment, i.e. the expected effect of actual task.

[0110] (3) OV-1

[0111] OV-1 macroscopically describes the ship equipment performing tasks, defines the architecture scope, identifies important entities and concepts of the architecture, and describes the interaction between the architecture and external systems and the environment of the architecture, providing a basic assumption for subsequent modeling and regulating and constraining subsequent modeling work. Multiple OV-1s can be developed for diversified tasks.

[0112] (4) OV-5a, OV-4

[0113] OV-5a describes the activities required by ship equipment to complete the task in the form of a tree diagram, which reflects the hierarchical structure of the activities. OV-4 describes the ship organization structure and its relationship, mainly modeling the command and coordination relationship between roles.

[0114] (5) OV-2, OV-5b, OV-3

[0115] OV-2 describes the resource interaction between activity nodes, activities, and role entities of ship equipment, mainly modeling the business logic requirements of activities and representing the distribution of the architecture in the spatial domain. OV-5b describes the activity elements in the actual task scenario of ship equipment in detail, including: activity subject, resource flow, environmental condition, operation rule, expected effect, and the membership relationship between activities, etc. OV-3 is a resource flow matrix automatically generated according to OV-2.

[0116] (6) OV-6a, OV-6b, OV-6c

[0117] OV-6a, describes the constraints and operational rules of each activity. OV-6b, describes the transition rules of activity state with events, capturing the constraints of activities. OV-6c, describes the events and architecture behavior in detail, representing the distribution of architecture in the time domain, which is of great significance for analyzing the time and quality characteristics of activities.

[0118] (7) SV-4a, SV-1a

[0119] SV-4a, describes the system functions required by ship equipment to complete the activities, similar to OV-5a, and embodies the hierarchy of system functions in the form of a tree diagram. SV-1a, defines the boundaries of the ship system, and defines the ship equipment system entity and its external environment.

[0120] (8) SV-4b, SV-1b

[0121] SV-4b, describes the system function elements in the actual task scenario of ship equipment, including: function subject, resource flow, running environment, process constraints, running rules, expected effect and the membership relationship between functions. SV-1b, describes the mutual relationship and resource interaction between ship system nodes, functions, and system entities, mainly models the logical requirements of functions, represents the distribution of ship system in the spatial domain, and provides support for ship system function requirement analysis.

[0122] (9) SV-10a, SV-10b, SV-10c

[0123] SV-10a, describes the constraints and operational rules of each system function of the ship. SV-10b, describes the transition of the system function state with events, capturing the constraints of the system function. SV-10c, analyzes the events and system behavior in detail, representing the distribution of the system function in the time domain.

[0124] (10) SV-5a, SV-5b

[0125] SV-5a, describes the mapping relationship between activities and system functions. One activity may require support from multiple system functions, and one system function may support multiple activities, so it is a many-to-many mapping network. SV-5a can verify the consistency, completeness and redundancy of OV-5a and SV-4a to some extent, that is, whether each activity is supported by a corresponding system function, and whether each system function has activities to support. SV-5b, describes the mapping relationship between activities and system entities. System entities are the carriers of system functions, and there is also a mapping relationship between them. Therefore, SV-5a, SV-5b, and SV-2 form a closed loop, and mutual verification can ensure the consistency and completeness of the DoDAF model.

[0126] (11) CV-2

[0127] CV-2, describes the hierarchy of capability, i.e. the capability index system.

[0128] (12) CV-6, CV-5

[0129] CV-6, describes the mapping relationship between capability and activity. CV-5, describes the mapping relationship between capability and organization, and mutual verification among CV-5, OV-5b and OV-4.

[0130] III. Activity-centered ship actual requirement decomposition method

[0131] The present application builds an extensible ship design field ontology model by sorting out professional dimensions, characteristic parameters, design elements, etc. in ship design; establishes an activity-centered ship actual requirement mapping decomposition model (see Figure 5), thereby establishing a ship actual requirement mapping decomposition and verification method.

[0132] (1) Activity is the activity under the whole task and whole process.

[0133] (2) Organization is the actual subject of whole activity execution, including the hull platform, all shipborne systems, and all personnel.

[0134] (3) Input and output are actual resources of whole activity processing, including all shipborne equipment, supplies, personnel, information, and energy.

[0135] (4) Activity is executed under actual operation conditions, including actual environmental conditions, actual resource conditions, and actual process conditions, wherein the actual environmental conditions are divided into ideal environmental conditions, typical operation environmental conditions, and extremely harsh environmental conditions; the actual resource conditions refer to the required resource requirements for activity execution, including actual shipborne equipment requirements, actual supply requirements, actual personnel requirements, actual information requirements, and actual energy requirements; the actual process conditions refer to the constraints of other associated activities that activity execution needs to meet.

[0136] (5) Actual operation rules refer to all outlines, orders, standards, specifications, guidelines that need to be followed in the activity execution process.

[0137] (6) Expected effect is the requirement for task execution expected effect under the whole task, whole process, whole activity, actual subject, actual resource, actual operation condition, and actual operation rule, including safety requirements, state transfer requirements, and timeliness requirements. The safety requirements include personnel safety requirements, shipborne equipment safety requirements, hull platform safety requirements, and shipborne system safety requirements. The safety requirements, state transfer requirements, and timeliness requirements are mapped and decomposed into hull platform requirements, shipborne system requirements, shipborne equipment requirements, and personnel requirements.

[0138] 1) Ship platform requirements are considered from the following dimensions respectively:

[0139] ① Shipborne equipment-ship platform dimension: describes the requirements of shipborne equipment on ship platform. Considered from the dimensions of overall layout, spatial size, structural load, environmental conditions, resource support, etc.

[0140] ② Personnel-ship platform dimension: describes the requirements of personnel on ship platform. Considered from the dimensions of overall layout, spatial size, environmental conditions, life support, etc.

[0141] ③ Shipborne system-ship platform dimension: describes the requirements of shipborne system on ship platform. Considered from the dimensions of overall layout, spatial size, structural load, environmental conditions, resource support, etc.

[0142] 2) Shipborne system requirements are considered from the following dimensions respectively:

[0143] ① Shipborne equipment-shipborne system dimension: describes the requirements of shipborne equipment on shipborne system. Considered from the dimensions of function, performance, interface, design constraint, etc.

[0144] ② Personnel-shipborne system dimension: describes the requirements of personnel on shipborne system. Considered from the dimensions of human-machine interface, system characteristics (sustainable, visible, easy to reach, easy to operate, easy to transport, etc.), etc.

[0145] ③ Shipborne system-shipborne system dimension: describes the requirements of shipborne system on shipborne system. Considered from the dimensions of system function, system performance, interface, environmental conditions, etc.

[0146] 3) Personnel requirements include requirements for personnel skills, personnel configuration, etc.

[0147] 4) Shipborne equipment requirements include requirements for structural weight, spatial size, resource support, etc. from ship platform, shipborne system, personnel.

Claims

1. A requirement analysis system in a ship design, characterized in that, Comprise: The demand ontology construction module is used for: analyzing the concept connotation of the actual task demand of the ship; constructing the actual task demand ontology model of the ship according to the concept connotation of the actual task demand of the ship, and the actual task demand of the ship is = < task, process, activity, subject, resource, condition, rule, expected effect >; analyzing the concept connotation of the actual system demand of the ship; constructing the actual system demand ontology model of the ship according to the concept connotation of the actual system demand of the ship, and the actual system demand of the ship is = < activity, logic, function, system, resource, condition, rule, expected effect >; according to the concept data model of the actual task demand ontology model of the ship and the DoDAF meta model, the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual task demand ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta model is established; according to the mapping relationship between the core concept elements of the business view and the system view of the actual system demand ontology model of the ship and the DoDAF meta model, the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual system demand ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta model is established, wherein: The mapping relationship between the elements of the actual task demand ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta model and the mapping relationship between the elements of the actual system demand ontology model of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta model are represented in the following table: ； The domain ontology construction module is used for: sorting the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements of the ship design; constructing the extensible ship design domain ontology model according to the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements in the ship design; according to the extensible ship design domain ontology model, the actual demand mapping decomposition model of the ship is established based on the activity, so as to establish the mapping decomposition and verification method of the actual demand of the ship. The DoDAF framework management module is configured to: according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model, establish the formal description of the ship actual task demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model, the ship actual task demand = {activity (task, process), organization (subject), resource, condition, rule, expected effect}; according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ship actual system demand ontology model and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model, establish the formal description of the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model, the ship actual system demand = {function (activity, logic), system, resource, condition, rule, expected effect}; taking the elements of the formal description of the ship actual task demand ontology model and the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model as a unit, traversing all DoDAF model meta-models in the DoDAF data dictionary, screening all DoDAF models describing the elements, and thus obtaining the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis; taking the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis as a unit, establishing the formal description of the DoDAF model meta-model applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis according to the DoDAF model meta-model described in the DoDAF data dictionary; taking the DoDAF models applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis as a unit, according to the definition rules of various constraint relationships, combining the properties of the modeling elements of the DoDAF model meta-model described in the DoDAF data dictionary, and establishing the constraint relationship network between the DoDAF model meta-models applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis; according to the simplification rules of various constraint relationships, simplifying the constraint relationship network between the DoDAF model meta-models applicable to the ship actual task demand analysis and the ship actual system demand analysis, and thus establishing the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the ship actual demand analysis; The demand modeling verification module is configured to: use the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the ship actual demand analysis and the mapping decomposition and verification method for the ship actual demand to establish the DoDAF model for the ship actual demand analysis. The requirement maintenance management module is used for: extracting the actual task requirements of the ship, the actual system requirements of the ship and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween from the DoDAF model of the actual requirement analysis of the ship according to the formal description of the actual task requirement ontology model of the ship adapting to the DoDAF meta-model and the formal description of the actual system requirement ontology model of the ship adapting to the DoDAF meta-model; establishing the traceability relationship between the actual task requirement elements of the ship and the actual system requirement elements of the ship according to the actual task requirements of the ship, the actual system requirements of the ship and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween; directly displaying the selected actual requirement elements of the ship and the actual requirement element network associated therewith in a graphical and matrix diversified form according to the traceability relationship between the actual task requirement elements of the ship and the actual system requirement elements of the ship; directly maintaining and managing the selected actual requirement elements of the ship and the actual requirement elements associated therewith based on the network and the traceability relationship, quickly responding to requirement changes and minimizing the influence of requirement changes; synchronizing all changes of the actual requirement elements of the ship to the DoDAF model of the actual requirement analysis of the ship in real time, ensuring the consistency and standardization of the actual requirement elements of the ship; and compiling the overall technical requirements of the ship and the system technical requirements of the ship including the actual task requirements of the ship, the actual system requirements of the ship and the traceability relationship between the actual requirement elements of the ship.

2. A requirement analysis system in a ship design according to claim 1, characterized in that, The concept connotation of the actual task requirements of the ship is summarized as: the requirement for the expected effect of task execution under the conditions of full task, full process, full activity, actual subject, actual resource, actual operation condition and actual operation rule.

3. A requirement analysis system in a ship design according to claim 1, characterized in that, The concept connotation of the actual system requirements of the ship is summarized as: the requirement for the expected effect of system operation under the conditions of full activity, full logic, full function, actual system, actual resource, actual operation condition and actual operation rule.

4. A requirement analysis system in a ship design according to claim 1, characterized in that, The DoDAF model suitable for the actual task requirement analysis and the actual system requirement analysis of the ship is represented as the following table: 。 5. A requirement analysis system in a ship design according to claim 1, characterized in that, Assume that there are two meta-models of DoDAF model applicable to ship actual mission requirement analysis and ship actual system requirement analysis: , , , define the following four types of constraint relationships, and identify the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of DoDAF model applicable to ship actual requirement analysis: Constraint 1: Irrelevance, No common modeling elements between meta-model A and B. Constraint relationship 2: weakly related, There are no common mandatory class modeling elements between meta-model A and B, but there are common optional class modeling elements. Constraint relationship 3: collaboration, There are common essential class modeling elements between meta-model A and B; Constraint relationship 4: dependency, Meta-model A is a subset of the necessary set of class modeling elements of B.

6. A requirement analysis system in a ship design according to claim 5, characterized in that, The constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF model suitable for the actual task requirement analysis and the actual system requirement analysis of the ship is simplified according to the following seven constraint relationship simplification rules, thereby establishing the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the actual requirement analysis of the ship: Simplification rule 1: if the meta-models A and B are irrelevant, there is no constraint relationship between the models A and B in terms of modeling sequence; Simplified Rule 2: If meta-model A is weakly related to B, and then model A has higher priority than model B, i.e. model A is established first, and vice versa; Simplification rule 3: if the meta-models A and B cooperate with each other, the models A and B can be established; Simplification rule 4: if the meta-model A depends on B, the model B has a higher priority than the model A, that is, the model B is established first, and vice versa; Simplification rule 5: among the four constraint relationships of irrelevance, weak correlation, cooperation and dependence, the dependence has the highest priority, and the other three constraint relationships can be selectively ignored; Simplification rule 6: if there are multiple meta-models with a higher priority than A, the model closest to A is selected as the object of the constraint relationship; Simplification rule 7: if the constraint relationships between the meta-models form a loop, the constraint relationships need to be simplified according to the specific situation.

7. A method of requirement analysis in a ship design, characterized by, The requirement analysis system of claim 1 is implemented by the following steps: Step 1, analyze the conceptual connotation of the actual task requirements of the ship; Step 2, according to the conceptual connotation of the actual task requirements of the ship analyzed in step 1, construct the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship; Step 3, analyze the conceptual connotation of the actual system requirements of the ship; Step 4, according to the conceptual connotation of the actual system requirements of the ship analyzed in step 3, construct the ontology model of the actual system requirements of the ship; Step 5, according to the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship constructed in step 2 and the conceptual data model of the DoDAF meta-model, establish the mapping relationship between the elements of the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model; Step 6, according to the mapping relationship between the core concept primitives of the business view and the system view of the DoDAF meta-model in step 4, establish the mapping relationship between the elements of the ontology model of the actual system requirements of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model; Step 7, according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model established in step 5, establish the formal description of the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship adapted to the DoDAF meta-model; Step 8, according to the mapping relationship between the elements of the ontology model of the actual system requirements of the ship and the elements of the DoDAF meta-model established in step 6, establish the formal description of the ontology model of the actual system requirements of the ship adapted to the DoDAF meta-model; Step 9, taking the elements of the formal description of the ontology model of the actual task requirements of the ship and the ontology model of the actual system requirements of the ship established in steps 7 and 8 as units, traversing all DoDAF model meta-models in the DoDAF data dictionary, filtering out all DoDAF models describing the elements, and thus obtaining the DoDAF models applicable to the analysis of the actual task requirements of the ship and the actual system requirements of the ship; Step 10, taking the DoDAF models applicable to the analysis of the actual task requirements of the ship and the actual system requirements of the ship filtered out in step 9 as units, establishing the formal description of the meta-model of each of the DoDAF models filtered out in step 9 according to the meta-model of the DoDAF model described in the DoDAF data dictionary; Step 11, taking the DoDAF models applicable to the analysis of the actual task requirements of the ship and the actual system requirements of the ship filtered out in step 9 as units, establishing the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF models filtered out in step 9 according to the definition rules of various constraint relationships and combining the attributes of the modeling elements of the meta-model of the DoDAF model described in the DoDAF data dictionary; Step 12, according to the simplification rules of various constraint relationships, simplifying the constraint relationship network between the meta-models of the DoDAF models filtered out in step 9 established in step 11, and thus establishing the DoDAF modeling and verification method for the actual requirements analysis of the ship; Step 13, combing the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements in ship design; Step 14, constructing the extensible ship design field ontology model according to the professional dimensions, characteristic parameters and design elements in ship design combing in step 13; Step 15, establishing the activity-centered ship actual demand mapping decomposition model according to the extensible ship design field ontology model constructed in step 14, thereby establishing the mapping decomposition and verification method of ship actual demand; Step 16, establishing the DoDAF model of ship actual demand analysis by using the DoDAF modeling and verification method of ship actual demand analysis established in steps 1-12 and the mapping decomposition and verification method of ship actual demand established in steps 13-15; Step 17, extracting the ship actual task demand, ship actual system demand and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween from the DoDAF model of ship actual demand analysis established in step 16 according to the formalized description of the ship actual task demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model established in step 7 and the formalized description of the ship actual system demand ontology model adapted to the DoDAF meta-model established in step 8; Step 18, establishing the traceability relationship between the ship actual task demand elements and the ship actual system demand elements according to the ship actual task demand, the ship actual system demand and the mutual mapping relationship therebetween extracted in step 17, and finally compiling the ship overall technical requirements and the ship system technical requirements containing the ship actual task demand, the ship actual system demand and the traceability relationship between the ship actual demand elements.

Images