Structural Constraint-Based Modeling and Reasoning with Basic Configuration Cells

  • Gasca Rafael M. 
  • Ortega Juan A. 
  • Miguel Toro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2239)


Configuration tasks are an important application area in engineering design. The proposed solving techniques use either a constraint-based framework or a logic-based approach. We propose a methodology to obtains desired configuration using basic configuration cells(BCC). They are built by means of the predefined components and connections of the given configuration problem. In practical applications of configuration tasks the BCCs and configuration goals are represented according to object-oriented programming paradigm. They are mapped into a numeric constraint satisfaction problem. The transformation of a basic configuration cell into a new one generates a sequence of numeric constraint satisfaction problems. We propose an algorithm that solves this sequence of problems in order to obtain a configuration solution according to the desired requirements or that detects inconsistencies in the requirements. The integration of object- oriented and constraint programming paradigms allows us to achieve a synergy that produces results that could not be obtained if each one were working individually.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Benhamou F. and Granvilliers L.:Combining Local Consistency, Symbolic Rewriting and Interval Methods in Proceedings of AISMC-3 volume 1138 of LNCS, Springer-Verlag.(1996)44–159Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collavizza H., Delobel F. and Rueher M.:Extending consistent domains of numeric CSP Proceecings of Sixteenth IJCAI’99,Stockholm,(1999)406–411Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fox M. and Long D.:The Detection and Explotation of Symmetry in Planning Problems IJCAI’99 (1999),956–961Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gasca, R.M. Razonamiento y simulación en sistemas que integran conocimiento cualitativo y cuantitativo Ph.D.dissertation Seville University,(1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gent I.P.and Barbara M. Smith Symmetry Breaking in Constraint Programming. In ECAI’2000 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein R., Buchheit M.and Nutt W. Configuration as model construction:The constructive problem solving approach. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conference on AI in Design (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lhomme O.:Consistency Techniques for Numeric CSPs Proceedings IJCAI’93, (1993)232–238Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Mailharro, A Classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,Analysis and Manufacturing,12(4) (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marti P., Rueher M.:Concurrent Cooperating Solvers over Reals. Reliable Computing 3 (1997)325–333Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGuiness D.L. and Wright J.R.:Conceptual Modelling for Configuration: A description Logic-based Approach. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,12(4)(1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meseguer P. and Torras C. Solving Strategies for Highly Symmetric CSPs. In IJCAI’99(1999)400–411Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sabin, D. and Freuder F.Configuration as Composite Constraint Satisfaction. In Workshop Notes of AAAI Fall Symposium on Configuration AAAI Press. Menlo Park,CA (1996)28–36Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sabin D. and Weigel R. Product Configuration Frameworks-A survey. In IEEE Intelligent Systems (1998)42–49Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Hentenryck P.,(1998)42-49 Michel L. and Deville Y. Numerica. A modeling language for global optimization The MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gasca Rafael M. 
    • 1
  • Ortega Juan A. 
    • 1
  • Miguel Toro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Languages and Computer SystemsUniversity of SevillaSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations