Drawing review cooperative control system combined with permission constraint

Abstract

The invention discloses a drawing review cooperative control system in combination with permission constraint, and belongs to the field of engineering project management, and the system comprises a review group building module which is used for building a drawing review group; the review information fusion module is used for performing layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to a review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result; the dispute point identification module is used for acquiring a first dispute point; the revision decision module is used for introducing a revision decision mechanism to analyze the plurality of review suggestions and generating an initial revision version; and the review and review module is used for introducing a review and review mechanism to perform review and review processing on the initial revised version to obtain a target revised version of the target electric power drawing. And review suggestions are reasonably fused according to the authority difference of the reviewer, review disputes are quickly identified and pointedly solved, and the efficiency and quality of electric power drawing review are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of engineering project management, and in particular to a drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints. Background Art

[0002] Power drawings are an important basis for the construction, operation, and maintenance of power projects, and their quality directly affects the safe and stable operation of the power system. To ensure the quality of power drawings, a strict review process is required before the drawings are officially released. In the prior art, the review of power drawings is completed by multiple people in collaboration. Reviewers review the drawings according to their respective professional backgrounds and experiences and put forward revision opinions. However, the professional backgrounds, professional directions, and work experiences of reviewers vary greatly, and the importance of review opinions is also different. The existing drawing review method does not fully consider the difference in the weight of reviewers' opinions, and treats the opinions of different reviewers equally, resulting in low review efficiency and difficulty in focusing on key issues. In addition, in the process of collaborative review, the same issue often receives different opinions from different reviewers, or even completely opposite opinions. It is necessary to analyze and weigh each review opinion one by one, evaluate its rationality, and determine whether to adopt it, which is labor-intensive and inefficient. For controversial points where reviewers disagree, the drawings are repeatedly revised, the review quality is not high, and in serious cases, it will affect the construction progress. Summary of the invention

[0003] This application provides a collaborative drawing review control system combined with authority constraints, aiming to solve the technical problems in the prior art that the review opinions are not weighted and review disputes are difficult to resolve efficiently during the review of power drawings, resulting in low efficiency and quality of power drawing review.

[0004] The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints disclosed in the present application includes: a review team formation module, which is used to form a drawing review team, and the drawing review team includes a first reviewer with a first review authority and a second reviewer with a second review authority; a review information fusion module, which is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review authority; a dispute point identification module, which is used to obtain a first dispute point, and the first dispute point refers to any one of a plurality of review dispute points in the target review result, the first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes a plurality of review opinions of a plurality of reviewers; a revision decision module, which is used to introduce a revision decision mechanism to analyze the plurality of review opinions and generate an initial revision version; a re-evaluation and re-review module, which is used to introduce a re-evaluation and re-review mechanism to re-evaluate and re-review the initial revision version to obtain a target revision version of the target power drawing.

[0005] One or more technical solutions provided in this application have at least the following technical effects or advantages: Since the drawing review panel is formed through the review panel formation module, the drawing review panel includes a first reviewer with a first review authority and a second reviewer with a second review authority. The reviewers are managed in a hierarchical manner to lay the foundation for assigning different weights to different review opinions. The review information fusion module performs layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer's review of the target power drawings based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer's review of the target power drawings based on the second review authority. By layering and fusing the review opinions of different reviewers, the review result is more comprehensive and objective, taking into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels. The first dispute point is obtained through the dispute point identification module. The first dispute point refers to any one of the multiple review dispute points in the target review result. The first dispute point corresponds to the first review The first review list includes multiple review opinions from multiple reviewers. By identifying controversial points in the target review results and summarizing the opinions of relevant reviewers, preparations are made for subsequent analysis and processing of controversial points. A revision decision-making module is used to introduce a revision decision-making mechanism to analyze multiple review opinions, generate an initial revision version, and improve revision efficiency. A re-evaluation and re-review module is used to introduce a re-evaluation and re-review mechanism to re-evaluate and re-review the initial revision version, and obtain a target revised version of the target power drawing. By reviewing the revised drawings again, the rationality of the revision is verified from multiple angles, and the technical solution for further improving the quality of power drawings solves the technical problems of the lack of weights of review opinions and the difficulty in efficiently resolving review disputes in the prior art during the review of power drawings, resulting in low efficiency and quality of power drawing review. The technical problems of reasonably integrating review opinions according to the differences in reviewer authority, quickly identifying and solving review disputes in a targeted manner, and improving the efficiency and quality of power drawing review are achieved.

[0006] The above description is only an overview of the technical solution of the present application. In order to more clearly understand the technical means of the present application, it can be implemented in accordance with the contents of the specification. In order to make the above and other purposes, features and advantages of the present application more obvious and easy to understand, the specific implementation methods of the present application are listed below. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0007] Figure 1 A structural schematic diagram of a drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints is provided for the embodiment of the present application; Figure 2 A flow chart of obtaining a target review result in a drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints is provided for an embodiment of the present application.

[0008] Explanation of the reference numerals: review panel formation module 11, review information fusion module 12, dispute point identification module 13, revision decision module 14, re-evaluation and re-examination module 15. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0009] The overall idea of ​​the technical solution provided by this application is as follows: The embodiment of the present application provides a collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints. First, the review team formation module forms a review team including reviewers with different authority according to the difference in authority of the reviewers, laying the foundation for distinguishing the weights of review opinions. Secondly, the review information fusion module adopts the review layer fusion strategy to layer and fuse the review results of different reviewers, so that the review opinions are more comprehensive and objective, taking into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels. Then, the dispute point identification module identifies the controversial points in the review results, and summarizes the opinions of relevant reviewers to prepare for the subsequent analysis and processing of controversial points. Next, the revision decision module adopts the revision decision mechanism to scientifically analyze the review opinions related to the controversial points, resolve differences, and form a preliminary revision plan. Afterwards, the re-evaluation and re-review module verifies the revised drawings from multiple angles through the re-evaluation and re-review mechanism to further improve the quality of the drawings.

[0010] After introducing the basic principles of the present application, the non-limiting implementation methods of the present application will be specifically introduced below in conjunction with the drawings in the specification.

[0011] like Figure 1 As shown, the embodiment of the present application provides a drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints, the system comprising: The review panel forming module 11 is used to form a drawing review panel, wherein the drawing review panel includes a first reviewer with a first review authority and a second reviewer with a second review authority.

[0012] Specifically, first, the jury formation module 11 obtains the basic information of the target power drawings through file parsing technology. Specifically, the metadata of the target power drawings is read, and the predefined keyword matching algorithm is used to determine the subdivision field to which the target power drawings belong; at the same time, the complexity of the target power drawings is analyzed, and the technical difficulty coefficient of the drawings is calculated, so as to fully understand the properties and characteristics of the target power drawings. After obtaining the basic information of the target power drawings, the jury formation module 11 accesses the expert database, which stores the detailed information of each reviewer. The jury formation module 11 first retrieves the relevant reviewers according to the subdivision field to which the target power drawings belong, and then matches the jury members with appropriate professional capabilities and experience based on the technical difficulty coefficient.

[0013] After selecting the jury members, the jury formation module 11 uses role-based access control technology to assign permissions to each reviewer. The jury formation module 11 presets multiple reviewer roles and associates a corresponding permission set for each role. The jury formation module 11 divides the roles according to the professional capabilities and experience of the reviewers, and automatically grants corresponding review permissions, such as the first review permission for reviewing design ideas and the second review permission for reviewing design details. Among them, the reviewer corresponding to the first review permission is the first reviewer, and the reviewer corresponding to the second review permission is the second reviewer.

[0014] Through the review team formation module 11, a professional and efficient review team can be quickly and accurately formed for each drawing to be reviewed, and the review tasks and authorities can be reasonably allocated, which improves the efficiency and quality of the review work and lays a solid foundation for the subsequent drawing review process.

[0015] The review information fusion module 12 is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawings based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawings based on the second review authority.

[0016] Specifically, the first reviewer reviews the target power drawings based on the first review authority and obtains the first review information. The first review authority gives the first reviewer the responsibility to control and review the drawings from the overall design perspective, where the first review information includes review opinions on design ideas, key technical indicators, etc. At the same time, the second reviewer reviews the target power drawings based on the second review authority and obtains the second review information. The second review authority gives the second reviewer the responsibility to review the drawings from the perspective of design details, where the second review information includes review opinions on specific design contents such as equipment selection, material selection, and process parameters.

[0017] After obtaining the first review information and the second review information, the review information fusion module 12 uses a preset review layer fusion strategy to comprehensively process the two types of information. Among them, the review layer fusion strategy refers to the fusion of the review opinions of different reviewers according to certain rules and methods to generate a unified and comprehensive review result. For example, the review information fusion module 12 maps the first review information and the second review information to different layers of the drawing according to the review layer fusion strategy, and then performs weighted synthesis on the layers according to factors such as the importance of each layer and the consistency of the review opinions; for another example, the review information fusion module 12 uses natural language processing technology according to the review layer fusion strategy to perform semantic analysis on the text opinions in the first review information and the second review information, extract key information and synthesize it.

[0018] Through the application of the review layer fusion strategy, the review information fusion module 12 generates a unified target review result, which integrates the review opinions of the first reviewer and the second reviewer, and can comprehensively and accurately reflect the design quality and existing problems of the drawings, thereby improving the efficiency and quality of the entire drawing review process.

[0019] The dispute point identification module 13 is used to obtain a first dispute point, where the first dispute point refers to any one of multiple review dispute points in the target review result, the first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions from multiple reviewers.

[0020] Specifically, the target review results include multiple review dispute points. The so-called review dispute points refer to situations where different reviewers hold different opinions on the same design content of the drawing. These dispute points may involve various aspects such as design ideas, technical indicators, equipment selection, etc., reflecting potential problems or optimization space in the drawing design.

[0021] After obtaining the target review results, the dispute point identification module 13 traverses multiple review dispute points from the target review results, selects one review dispute point as the first dispute point each time, and generates a corresponding first review list for the dispute point. The first review list is a summary table that contains different review opinions of multiple reviewers on the first dispute point. In the form of a list, the first review list clearly shows the differences and opinions of each reviewer on the dispute point.

[0022] By generating the first review list, the dispute point identification module 13 can effectively extract and centrally present the review differences, quickly understand the focus of the review dispute, and carry out subsequent discussions and revisions in a targeted manner.

[0023] The revision decision module 14 is used to introduce a revision decision mechanism to analyze the multiple review opinions and generate an initial revision version.

[0024] Specifically, the revision decision module 14 introduces a revision decision mechanism for comprehensive analysis of multiple review opinions in the first review list. The revision decision mechanism comprehensively considers factors such as the professional ability of each reviewer, the consistency of the review opinions, the importance of the opinions, etc., and automatically generates an initial revision version through weighted calculation, logical reasoning and other methods. First, the review opinions in the first review list are classified and counted to identify the support for different modification suggestions; secondly, according to the preset decision rules, the different modification suggestions are prioritized and screened to determine the final adopted modification opinions; then, based on the adopted modification opinions, the initial revision version of the drawing is automatically generated, and the location and content of the modification are marked.

[0025] By introducing the revision decision mechanism, the revision decision module 14 can quickly and efficiently complete the comprehensive analysis and decision-making of the review opinions, reduce the workload of manual processing, and improve the review efficiency.

[0026] The review and reexamination module 15 is used to introduce a review and reexamination mechanism to review and reexaminate the initial revised version to obtain a target revised version of the target power drawing.

[0027] Specifically, the review and reexamination module 15 introduces a review and reexamination mechanism to conduct multiple rounds of review and modification on the initial revised version, and finally generate a target revised version of the target power drawing, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the drawing revision.

[0028] In the re-evaluation and re-review mechanism, the re-evaluation and re-review module 15 first sends the initial revision to the original drawing review team for re-evaluation. The reviewers will focus on checking whether the revision opinions adopted by the revision decision module 14 have been correctly implemented, and conduct an overall assessment of the revised drawings. If the re-evaluation results show that there are still problems or omissions, the initial revision will be further modified and improved. After the re-evaluation stage, the initial revision that passes the re-evaluation enters the review stage and is submitted to the new drawing review team for review. The new drawing review team is composed of experts who did not participate in the original review. They evaluate the overall quality of the drawing revision and determine the target revision of the target power drawing after the evaluation is passed.

[0029] After the re-evaluation and re-examination module 15, a target revised version of the target power drawing is formed, which improves the efficiency and quality of drawing revision and provides a reliable guarantee for the smooth implementation of the engineering project.

[0030] Furthermore, the jury formation module includes the following execution steps: Extracting a first review category from a drawing review category set; forming a first reviewer set for the first review category, and forming the drawing review group based on the first reviewer set; wherein the drawing review category set includes at least a preliminary review category set, a technical review category set, a safety review category set, an economic review category set, and an environmental impact assessment category set.

[0031] In a feasible implementation, the review team formation module 11 first extracts the first review category from the preset drawing review category set. The drawing review category set is a category set pre-set according to different professional fields and review focuses of drawing review, which includes at least the following five categories: preliminary review category set, technical review category set, safety review category set, economic review category set and environmental impact assessment category set. Each category set contains a series of review items and contents related to the professional field. Among them, the preliminary review category set evaluates the basic requirements and overall design of the drawings, including checking the integrity and compliance of the drawings, verifying whether the design meets the standards, and preliminarily evaluating the rationality and feasibility of the design; the technical review category set focuses on the technical details and professional content of the drawing design, including electrical system design, equipment selection, distribution device layout, grounding and lightning protection design, cable line laying and lighting system design; the safety review category set emphasizes a comprehensive assessment of the safety of the drawing design, including both electrical safety reviews and the prediction and prevention of safety risks in the construction process; the economic review category set analyzes the economic rationality of the drawing design. On the one hand, it evaluates the cost investment of the design plan, including the initial construction cost and the later operation and maintenance cost, and on the other hand, it examines whether the energy-saving measures in the drawings are reasonable and effective to achieve the purpose of economic operation; the environmental impact assessment category set conducts an environmental assessment of the drawing design to ensure that the design plan meets environmental protection requirements and minimizes the impact of the project implementation on the surrounding environment.

[0032] Through the division of the drawing review category set, the review team formation module 11 can extract the first review category in a targeted manner, and form a corresponding first reviewer set according to the professional requirements of the category. The reviewers in the first reviewer set all have professional backgrounds and review capabilities that match the first review category, ensuring a comprehensive and accurate review of the drawing content under the professional category. Afterwards, the review team formation module 11 forms the final drawing review team based on the first reviewer set. The professional composition of the review team members of the drawing review team corresponds to the drawing review category, which not only ensures the overall professionalism and authority of the review team, but also enables the segmentation and coordination of the review work, improving the review efficiency and quality.

[0033] Furthermore, the jury formation module also includes the following execution steps: A first review scope of the first review category is obtained; the first review scope is analyzed to obtain a first review authority, and the first review authority is opened to the first reviewer set.

[0034] In a feasible implementation manner, the review panel forming module 11 further improves the pertinence and standardization of the review work through review authority during the process of forming the drawing review panel.

[0035] After extracting the first review category, the review team formation module 11 further obtains the first review scope of the category. The first review scope refers to the collection of review tasks and responsibilities associated with the first review category, which clarifies the work boundaries and authority scope of the reviewers under this category. For example, for the electrical system design subcategory in the technical review category set, its first review scope includes specific tasks such as reviewing the system main wiring design, calculating short-circuit current parameters, and verifying relay protection setting values; and for the cost analysis subcategory in the economic review category set, its first review scope includes reviewing equipment and material procurement costs, evaluating construction labor cost budgets, and calculating operation and maintenance cost estimates.

[0036] After obtaining the first review scope, the review team formation module 11 conducts an in-depth analysis of it and generates the first review authority corresponding to it based on the analysis results. The first review authority is a further refinement and quantification of the first review scope. Through the set authority parameters, the behavioral boundaries and decision-making space of the reviewer in the specific review work are defined. For example, the first review authority includes: the reviewer's viewing authority on the drawing content (fully visible / partially visible / invisible), the reviewer's decision-making authority on the review results (full decision / partial decision / suggestive decision), the reviewer's control authority over the review process (full control / partial control / uncontrollable), etc. Through the setting of these authority parameters, hierarchical management and process control of the review work are realized.

[0037] After the first review authority is generated, the review team formation module 11 opens it to all reviewers in the first review personnel set, so that each reviewer in the first review personnel set will obtain review authority that matches their professional ability and carry out drawing review work within this authority. The review task allocation mechanism based on authority can ensure that reviewers play the greatest role in their professional fields, while also avoiding the occurrence of unauthorized review or blind review.

[0038] The review team formation module 11 introduces the review scope and review authority to achieve professional formation and refined management of the review team, improve the quality and efficiency of drawing review work, and provide reliable support for subsequent review work.

[0039] Further, such as Figure 2 As shown, the review information fusion module includes the following execution steps: Extract any review information of the first reviewer on any drawing point in the first review information; read a predetermined review label strategy, and label the arbitrary review information according to the predetermined review label strategy to obtain an arbitrary label map; generate a first review visible map according to the arbitrary label map; obtain a second review visible map of the second review information; perform layer fusion processing on the first review visible map and the second review visible map according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result.

[0040] In a feasible implementation, the review information fusion module 12 first extracts any review information of the first reviewer on any drawing point from the first review information. Wherein, the drawing point refers to any design element or position in the drawing, such as equipment, line, layout, etc.; the review information refers to the review opinions and suggestions given by the reviewer to the point, such as "the equipment selection is unreasonable", "the cable line design needs to be optimized", etc. After extracting the review information, the review information fusion module 12 reads the predetermined review label strategy and labels each review information according to the strategy. Wherein, the predetermined review label strategy is a predefined label rule and classification system, which is used to map review opinions of different types and levels into standardized review labels. For example, the review label strategy sets different levels of labels such as "X1", "X2", "X3" according to the severity of the review opinions, corresponding to review results of different strengths such as "the equipment selection is very unreasonable and needs to be adjusted", "the cable line is very unreasonable and needs to be adjusted", and "the cost is higher than the budget and needs to be adjusted". By labeling the review information, the review information fusion module 12 converts the originally scattered and non-standard review opinions into a structured and standardized data format, which is convenient for subsequent analysis and processing. At the same time, the review label corresponding to each review information also constitutes a label map, which intuitively presents the distribution and severity of the problems at the point in different review dimensions.

[0041] Based on the label map, the review information fusion module 12 further generates a first review visual map. The first review visual map is a comprehensive image obtained by superimposing and fusing all the label maps of the first reviewer, which centrally displays the review results and problem distribution of the first reviewer for the entire drawing. While generating the first review visual map, the review information fusion module 12 obtains the review information of the second reviewer, and generates a second review visual map through the same labeling processing and visualization steps, which reflects the distribution of the review opinions and problem focus of the second reviewer. Afterwards, the review information fusion module 12 performs layer fusion processing on the first review visual map and the second review visual map according to the preset review layer fusion strategy. The review layer fusion strategy is to fuse multiple review visual maps into a unified target review result by comprehensively considering factors such as the weights of different reviewers, the priority of review labels, and the spatial distribution of problems. For example, the layer fusion strategy merges and counts similar labels from different reviewers, and generates a comprehensive problem map based on the frequency and distribution of the labels. It cross-analyzes review labels of different categories to identify weak links and optimization priorities in the drawing design. It also weights and mixes different view layers based on the professional weights of each reviewer to obtain the final review result map as the target review result.

[0042] Through the labeling processing and multi-view fusion of the review information fusion module 12, the review opinions of different reviewers are highly integrated and centrally presented, and through intuitive visualization, a decision-making reference is provided for the subsequent location and optimization of drawing problems.

[0043] Furthermore, the review information fusion module also includes the following execution steps: According to the review layer fusion strategy, N reference points in the first review visible graph are determined as registration points, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3; based on the registration points, N points to be registered in the second review visible graph are offset and registered to obtain the target review result.

[0044] In a feasible implementation, the review information fusion module 12 determines N reference points in the first review visible graph as alignment points according to the review layer fusion strategy. Wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 3. The selection of alignment points needs to meet the following conditions: first, the position in the first review visible graph should be relatively fixed and clear, easy to identify and extract; second, it should be distributed in different areas of the drawing as much as possible to cover the entire review scope. For example, key nodes such as substations, distribution rooms, and electrical equipment are selected as alignment points. After determining the N alignment points in the first review visible graph, the review information fusion module 12 identifies the corresponding N points to be aligned in the second review visible graph.

[0045] Since the two review visual diagrams correspond to the same drawing, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two drawings. However, due to the marking habits and precision differences of different reviewers, there may be a certain offset or misalignment between the points to be matched in the second review visual diagram and the registration points in the first review visual diagram. In order to eliminate this deviation, the review information fusion module 12 uses the registration points of the first review visual diagram as a reference to perform overall displacement, rotation, scaling and other geometric transformations on the second review visual diagram, so that the N points in the two views can overlap as accurately as possible.

[0046] By aligning the views based on the registration points, the review information fusion module 12 effectively eliminates the geometric deviations between different review visual views and achieves accurate superposition and fusion of layers. After the registration is completed, all the graphics elements and labels in the second review visual view will be spatially consistent with the first review visual view, thereby obtaining the target review result after geometric registration.

[0047] Furthermore, the review module includes the following execution steps: The re-evaluation and review mechanism includes a review and verification mechanism; the multiple reviewers are screened according to the review and verification mechanism to obtain a target verifier set, and the target verifier set includes each reviewer corresponding to the multiple review opinions; the verification result of the initial revised version by each verifier in the verification group is obtained, and the verification group refers to a combination of three verifiers randomly selected from the target verifier set; when the verification result does not meet the first pass rate threshold, the initial revised version is repaired.

[0048] In a feasible implementation, the review and reexamination mechanism of the review and reexamination module 15 includes a review and verification mechanism. The purpose of the review and verification mechanism is to timely discover and correct problems or omissions that may occur in the revision process by sampling and cross-verifying the initial revision version, so as to ensure that the final revision result meets the expected quality requirements. When applying the review and verification mechanism, the review and reexamination module 15 first screens multiple reviewers participating in the original drawing review group to obtain a target verifier set. The selection criteria for the target verifier set are: the review opinions held by the reviewers contained therein should be consistent with the opinions of the majority of reviewers, that is, the so-called public review opinions. Public review opinions refer to an opinion or suggestion that is recognized and supported by the most reviewers in the original review process. Through the above-mentioned screening process, the review and reexamination module 15 selects a group of reviewers who have a consensus on the drawing problems and a consistent view on the revision plan from the original drawing review group to form a target verifier set.

[0049] After obtaining the target set of verifiers, the review and reexamination module 15 randomly selects three verifiers from them to form a verification group. Each verifier will independently review and evaluate the initial revision and give the corresponding verification results. The verification result can be passed or failed. Then, the review and reexamination module 15 comprehensively analyzes the verification results of each verifier and judges whether the overall quality of the initial revision meets the standards based on this. Among them, the preset first pass rate threshold is used as the measurement standard. The first pass rate threshold refers to the minimum requirement that the proportion of pass results in the verification group needs to meet. If the verification results of each verification group do not meet the first pass rate threshold, that is, the pass ratio does not meet the preset minimum requirement, it is considered that the initial revision still has problems and needs to be reworked and revised again until the revised version can meet the verification requirements.

[0050] By introducing a review and verification mechanism, we can effectively avoid omissions and negligence in the drawing revision process and improve the reliability of the revision results.

[0051] Furthermore, the review module also includes the following execution steps: When the verification result meets the first pass rate threshold, obtain the repeated review mechanism in the re-evaluation and review mechanism; form a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set refers to a set of reviewers after the target verification set is eliminated from the multiple reviewers; obtain the review results of the initial revised version by each reviewer in the review group, wherein the review group refers to a combination of three reviewers randomly selected from the target reviewer set; when the review result does not meet the second pass rate threshold, conduct a special collaborative review of the initial revised version.

[0052] In a feasible implementation, when the verification result meets the preset first pass rate threshold, that is, the proportion of the verification group that passes meets the expected requirements, it is considered that the initial revision has a certain quality foundation and can enter the next review stage, and enter the repeated review mechanism in the review and re-evaluation mechanism. When the repeated review mechanism is started, the review and re-evaluation module 15 first forms a target reviewer set. This set is obtained after eliminating the target reviewer set involved in the verification work on the basis of the original review team, so as to avoid the reviewer being affected by preconceived ideas during the review process and ensure the independence and objectivity of the review opinion. After obtaining the target reviewer set, the review and re-evaluation module 15 will randomly select three reviewers from it to form a review group. Each review group will independently review and evaluate the initial revision and give the corresponding review result. The review result can be passed or not passed. The review and re-evaluation module 15 comprehensively analyzes the review results of each review group and judges whether the overall quality of the initial revision meets the standard based on this. Among them, the preset second pass rate threshold is used as the measurement standard. The second pass rate threshold is similar to the first pass rate threshold, which also refers to the minimum requirement for the proportion of pass results in the review group. If the review results of the review group do not meet the second pass rate threshold, that is, the pass rate does not meet the preset minimum requirement, it is considered that the initial revision may still have some legacy issues or room for optimization, and a special collaborative review is required. Special collaborative review is a more detailed and in-depth review method. For specific issues raised in the review opinions, reviewers from related professions are organized to conduct joint discussions and focus on solving key problems.

[0053] By introducing a repeated review mechanism and special collaborative reviews, the re-evaluation and re-review module 15 further strengthens the quality control of the initial revision. Through multiple rounds of multi-angle review and optimization, the perfection of the revision plan is continuously improved, minimizing legacy issues and potential risks.

[0054] Furthermore, when the review result meets the second pass rate threshold, the initial revision is used as the target revision, and the target revision is archived and backed up to a cloud drawing library.

[0055] In a feasible implementation, when the review results of each review group meet the preset second pass rate threshold, that is, the pass rate reaches the expected requirement, the review and reexamination module 15 determines the initial revision that has passed the review as the target revision, which represents the final output of the drawing revision process. In order to facilitate subsequent query, tracing and reuse, the review and reexamination module 15 archives and backs up the target revision in a standardized manner. The target storage location for the archived backup is the cloud drawing library. The drawing library is a centralized data warehouse based on cloud storage technology, which provides safe, reliable and efficient storage and management services for massive engineering drawings to facilitate subsequent retrieval and management.

[0056] By using cloud-based drawing libraries for archiving and backup, centralized management and long-term preservation of drawing revision results can be achieved. On the one hand, cloud storage can provide larger storage space and stronger data security, which can effectively prevent the loss or damage of drawing files; on the other hand, centralized version management can improve the efficiency of drawing query and call, providing strong support for subsequent project implementation and operation and maintenance work.

[0057] In summary, the drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints provided in the embodiment of the present application has the following technical effects: The review group formation module is used to form a drawing review group. The drawing review group includes a first reviewer with the first review authority and a second reviewer with the second review authority, which lays the foundation for the hierarchical integration and weight distribution of review opinions. The review information fusion module is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review authority, so that the review result can take into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels, improve the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the review result, and provide a reliable basis for subsequent drawing revisions. The dispute point identification module is used to obtain the first dispute point. The first dispute point refers to any one of the multiple review dispute points in the target review result. The first dispute point corresponds to the first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions of multiple reviewers, which is prepared for the efficient resolution of dispute issues in drawing review and reduces the inefficiency caused by repeated revisions of disputes. The revision decision module is used to introduce a revision decision mechanism to analyze multiple review opinions and generate an initial revision version, thereby improving the efficiency of handling review disputes. The review and reexamination module is used to introduce a review and reexamination mechanism to review and reexamine the initial revised version, and obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing, thereby further improving the quality and reliability of the power drawing.

[0058] Any steps of the system described above may be stored as computer instructions or programs in an unlimited computer memory, and may be called and recognized by an unlimited computer processor to implement any system in the embodiments of the present application, without any unnecessary restrictions.

[0059] Furthermore, the first or second mentioned above may not only represent an order relationship, but may also represent a specific concept, and / or refer to multiple elements that can be selected individually or in full. Obviously, those skilled in the art can make various changes and modifications to the present application without departing from the scope of the present application. Thus, if these modifications and variations of the present application fall within the scope of the present application and its equivalents, the present application intends to include these modifications and variations.

Claims

1. A collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints, characterized in that: include: A review team forming module, wherein the review team forming module is used to form a drawing review team, wherein the drawing review team includes a first reviewer with a first review authority and a second reviewer with a second review authority; A review information fusion module, the review information fusion module is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review authority; A dispute point identification module, the dispute point identification module is used to obtain a first dispute point, the first dispute point refers to any one of a plurality of review dispute points in the target review result, the first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes a plurality of review opinions of a plurality of reviewers; A revision decision module, wherein the revision decision module is used to introduce a revision decision mechanism to analyze the multiple review opinions and generate an initial revision version; A review and reexamination module is used to introduce a review and reexamination mechanism to review and reexamine the initial revised version to obtain a target revised version of the target power drawing.

2. According to claim 1, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The jury formation module includes the following execution steps: Extract the first review category from the drawing review category set; Establishing a first set of reviewers for the first review category, and forming the drawing review team based on the first set of reviewers; Among them, the drawing review category set at least includes a preliminary review category set, a technical review category set, a safety review category set, an economic review category set and an environmental impact assessment category set.

3. According to claim 2, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The jury formation module also includes the following execution steps: Obtaining a first review scope of the first review category; The first review scope is analyzed to obtain first review authority, and the first review authority is opened to the first reviewer set.

4. According to claim 1, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The review information fusion module includes the following execution steps: Extracting any review information of the first reviewer on any drawing point in the first review information; Reading a predetermined review label strategy, and labeling the arbitrary review information according to the predetermined review label strategy to obtain an arbitrary label map; Generate a first review visual graph according to the arbitrary label graph; Acquire a second review visual graph of the second review information; The first review visible graph and the second review visible graph are subjected to layer fusion processing according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result.

5. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The review information fusion module also includes the following execution steps: Determining N reference points in the first review visual graph as registration points according to the review layer fusion strategy, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3; According to the registration points, offset registration is performed on the N points to be registered in the second review visible graph to obtain the target review result.

6. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The review module includes the following steps: The re-evaluation and re-review mechanism includes an assessment and verification mechanism; Screening the multiple reviewers according to the review and verification mechanism to obtain a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set includes reviewers corresponding to the multiple review opinions among the multiple review opinions; Obtaining verification results of the initial revised version by each verifier in a verification group, wherein the verification group refers to a combination of three verifiers randomly selected from the target verifier set; When the verification result does not meet the first pass rate threshold, the initial revised version is repaired.

7. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The review module also includes the following steps: When the verification result meets the first pass rate threshold, obtaining a repeated review mechanism in the re-evaluation and re-examination mechanism; Forming a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set refers to a set of reviewers formed by removing the target checker set from the multiple reviewers; Obtaining review results of the initial revised version by each reviewer in a review group, wherein the review group refers to a combination of three reviewers randomly selected from the target reviewer set; When the review result does not meet the second pass rate threshold, a special collaborative review is conducted on the initial revised version.

8. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 7 is characterized in that: When the review result meets the second pass rate threshold, the initial revision is used as the target revision, and the target revision is archived and backed up to a cloud drawing library.

Images