Graph-Based Rule Configuration for Complex Technical Systems

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Complex technical systems lack a standard approach for specifying and evaluating configuration rules, leading to inefficiencies, errors, and inconsistent knowledge sharing among engineers, as these rules are often implicit and not machine-readable.

Innovation Solution

A computerized method for defining, validating, and serializing rules in a graphical interface, converting them into programming or natural language, and automatically evaluating them to configure and maintain technical systems represented as graphs, ensuring compatibility and consistency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If rules are specified manually by engineers without a standard approach, then flexibility in system configuration is maintained, but time consumption and error rates increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveFlexibility in system configurationVSAvoidTime consumption for rule evaluation

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transforms rules from implicit engineer knowledge into explicit machine-readable parameters with standardized syntax and semantics. This parameterization enables automated evaluation while preserving configuration flexibility through configurable rule templates and parameters.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary layer (rule engine and validation system) that mediates between engineer intent and system configuration. This intermediary automatically evaluates rules against system graphs, reducing manual inspection time while maintaining configuration flexibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Adaptability or versatility

If rules are kept implicit in engineers' minds rather than written down, then adaptability to different situations is maintained, but knowledge sharing and consistency deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveAdaptability to different situationsVSAvoidKnowledge sharing among engineers

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates machine-readable copies of implicit engineer knowledge in standardized formats (JSON, XML, or domain-specific languages). These copies enable consistent knowledge sharing while maintaining adaptability through parameterized rule templates that can be applied to different situations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent develops universal rule formats and validation mechanisms that can handle multiple engineering scenarios. The standardized rule structure serves multiple functions: knowledge documentation, automated evaluation, consistency checking, and inter-engineer communication.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Reliability

If manual inspection is used to identify graph transformations, then accuracy in rule application can be maintained, but productivity and automation level decrease

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveAccuracy in rule applicationVSAvoidSpeed of system configuration

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements automated feedback loops where the system validates rules against configuration graphs, detects inconsistencies, and provides correction suggestions. This automated feedback maintains accuracy while significantly increasing productivity compared to manual inspection.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent enables the system to automatically evaluate and validate its own configuration rules without human intervention. The rule engine self-services by checking consistency, detecting conflicts, and suggesting corrections, thereby maintaining reliability while boosting productivity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Loss of information

If diverse configuration parameters are incorporated into system graphs, then system representation completeness is improved, but complexity of rule specification and validation increases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveCompleteness of system representationVSAvoidComplexity of rule specification

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments complex configuration rules into modular components with standardized parameters and templates. This segmentation reduces specification complexity while maintaining complete system representation by organizing diverse parameters into structured, manageable rule elements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS11886161B2Configuring and building an automation system to perform rule-based transformations on complex technical systems

Publication Date: 2024.01.30 SIEMENS AG

AI summary

System and methods for configuring a technical system based on generated rules and building the technical system. The technical system and the generated rules are given in graph representations including the following steps: defining rules by a user and representing the rules in a graphical interface, converting the rules from the graphical interface into a programming language and/or a natural language, validating the rules for the technical system, checking the compatibility of the rules, serializing the rules for storage in a file system or a database, using the serialized rules to configure the technical system, and building the configured technical system.