In the communication and sharing of product data, if the difference of the required data quality and the data quality actually incorporated into data is significant, it causes various problems. It is often the case that a creator of low quality data does not realize it unless it is harmful for his job. In most cases, low quality data passed to subsequent processes, such as manufacturing process, cause problems since these are not appropriate from the machining precision point of view or the detailed shape modeling point of view. In these cases, rework or repair of data is necessitated before commencing the target process, which results in significant economy loss and delay of product development. Today’s product model data are dumb data because design intents and data quality incorporated are not explicitly represented. Receiving systems cannot know whether the data passed possess sufficient quality for the target job or not. Another problem is that engineers in later processes, such as the manufacturing process, cannot issue data quality related request beforehand in a commonly agreed manner. The problems mentioned above are caused by the lack of a commonly agreed representation of product data quality (PDQ) information. Our proposed solution is designed to enable the communication and sharing of data quality information. This paper reports the development of a PDQ standard (ISO 10303-59), which is a resource part of ISO 10303 Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) (2008, “ISO 10303-59, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 59 Integrated Generic Resource: Quality of Product Shape Data,” International Standard Organization, Geneva). The objective of ISO 10303-59 is to establish a PDQ model and to enable the use of PDQ data independently or in combination with product data. The developed PDQ information model represents concepts such as data quality criteria, measurement requirements, and measured results. Based on the PDQ model, the PDQ for shape data model, which is a specialization of the PDQ model to 3D shape data quality, is also developed.

1.
2008, “
ISO 10303-59, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 59 Integrated Generic Resource: Quality of Product Shape Data
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
2.
Brunnermeier
,
S.
, 1999, “
99-1 Planning Report Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain
,” Research Triangle Institute for National Institute of Standards and Technology, Program Office, Strategic Planning and Economic Analysis Group.
3.
Phelps
,
T.
, 1999, “
Extending Quality Concepts to Product Data
,”
Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) Actionline
,
19
(
7
), pp.
38
42
.
5.
Noorani
,
R.
, 2005,
Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken
.
6.
Barequet
,
G.
, and
Kumar
,
S.
, 1997, “
Repairing CAD Models
,”
Proceedings of IEEE Visualization
, pp.
363
370
.
7.
Bohn
,
J.
, 1995, “
Removing Zero Volume Parts From CAD Models for Layered Manufacturing
,”
IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl.
0272-1716,
15
(
6
), pp.
27
34
.
8.
Krause
,
F. -L.
,
Stiel
,
C.
, and
Lueddemann
,
J.
, 1997, “
Processing of CAD-Data: Conversion, Verification and Repair
,”
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications
,
ACM
,
New York
, pp.
248
254
.
9.
1999, VDA Recommendation 4955/2: Scope and Quality of CAD/CAM Data, German Assoc. Automotive Industry (VDA), Frankfurt, Germany.
10.
JAMA/JAPIA
, 2005, “
JAMA/JAPIA PDQ Guideline–Criterion-JAMAEIC025
,” V4.1, 2005-04-19.
11.
SASIG
, 2004, SASIG Product Data Quality Guidelines for the Global Automotive Industry.
12.
Tanaka
,
F.
, and
Kishinami
,
T.
, 2006, “
STEP-Based Quality Diagnosis of Shape Data of Product Models for Collaborative e-Engineering
,”
Comput. Ind.
0166-3615,
57
, pp.
245
260
.
13.
ISO 10303-14, Description Methods: The EXPRESS-X Language Reference Manual
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
14.
Ficco
,
M.
,
Mandorli
,
F.
, and
Otto
,
M. H.
, 1999, “
Error Classification and Recovery Within CAD Models Reconstruction
,”
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications
, Jun. 8–11,
ACM
, pp.
316
317
.
15.
Contero
,
M.
,
Company
,
P.
,
Vila
,
C.
, and
Aleixos
,
N.
, 2002, “
Product Data Quality and Collaborative Engineering
,”
IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl.
0272-1716,
22
, pp.
32
42
, special issue on graphics in advanced computer-aided design.
16.
National Computer Graphics Association
, 1991, Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES), Version 5.1.
17.
ISO 10303-1, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 1. Overview and Fundamental Principles
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
18.
Rappoport
,
A.
, 2003, “
An Architecture for Universal CAD Data Exchange
,”
Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications
, pp.
266
269
.
19.
ISO 10303-21, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 21 Implementation Methods: Clear Text Encoding of the Exchange Structure
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
20.
ISO 10303-22, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 22 Implementation Methods: Standard Data Access Interface
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
21.
ISO 10303-11, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration. Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part Description Methods: The EXPRESS Language Reference
,” International Standard Organization, Geneva.
You do not currently have access to this content.