Re: [bsp-forum] Mission Statement

["Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Was just having a similar discussion with Peter Benson at ECCMA, Deke Smith and Michelle offline - concluded with

"....I'm sure Michelle or Toby and the others could explain better, but maybe the ontology we are after is is not to enforce top down or bottom up views for data maintenance, its more to build bridges based upon building services to the occupants and surrounding community rather than building elements, jurisdiction requirements, use group etc that drive project delivery in the first place.  Example, daily or even hourly sensor reports versus trends across a particular region presented in simple graphs rather than large stacks of detailed reports. It doesn't mean the identities, maps, classes, properties, units of measure, qualifiers, and values are not there, they are just not needed up front and visible in this framework for certain users. In other words, someone could use this open ontology on any level to dial in the words or values they know and maybe this could help place and locate the rest of the data they should look at to make whatever decision has them in the building data in the future after the documents have changed hands 20 times. Like the phone game, there is a potential for loss and error at every exchange. "

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Bob Smith <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Deborah,

 

Toby makes a powerful point, IMO, that separating services from hardware, or as he puts it "The owner wants a building system that keeps employees alert (and productive)". The service is provided by system components. The owner is not concerned with specifications of all the hardware options, but instead the result or output of the system. It is up to the specialists to use the owner's statement of service requirements. Decoupling services from system components requires a change in mindsets.

 

I see a huge advantage of this BSP forum of having generalists and specialists to discuss the problem and how Ontology provides a new level of thinking.

 

Do you think it makes sense when mentioning Frameworks to link to the 2^nd Ontology Summit's Communique dealing with DIMENSIONS of a Framework?

 

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique#nid10NG

 

and the Dimension Map that Peter Brown and others developed http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_FrameworksForConsideration/DimensionsMap

 

 

Often times a building's "Owner" is a city government, such as the City of Huntington Beach. Framing a large capital investment project in terms that the citizens can understand, and allowing the architects, engineers, constructors, and energy manager deliberate over options for achieving those services raises many opportunities for improved budgeting and value clarification.

 

(Of course, some of these topics are rather removed from our mission and charter, but are implicit in the discussions).

 

 

Cheers,

 

Bob

 

---

From: bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deborah MacPherson
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:04 AM
To: BSP Forum
Subject: Re: [bsp-forum] Mission Statement

 

In my opinion "related services" needs to be explained. For example, it was news to some here at WDG that a "service" of a building could be healthy air the same way the service of a hotel is a clean bed and restaurant.

If the list of sample services needs to change or update in the future, that is ok but at least its starts with something and as the exercises progress, all services listed can be checked just for S&G just to be sure a sufficient range is covered.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Bob Smith <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Deborah,

 

Do you think the term "related service" provides us with opportunity to address scope while retaining focus on Service (as opposed to Systems)?

 

Cheers,

 

Bob

 

---

From: bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deborah MacPherson
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:52 AM
To: BSP Forum
Subject: [bsp-forum] Mission Statement

 

""Building Service Performance" is an Ontolog project to formalize how we describe any related service for the built environment."

I don't like the word "any" because its too broad. Is the following acceptable:

""Building Service Performance" is an Ontolog project to formalize descriptions and metrics for the built environment."

--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC

**************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance

--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC

**************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/   
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/ 
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance    (01)