bsp-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [bsp-forum] Bouncing things off the owner

To: "BSP Forum" <bsp-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:47:53 -0400
Message-id: <48f213f30807080547s6949c6a2j32c59e723ff3eff8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Toby ~ this is a very hard problem and inspiring proposed solution to at least some part of it. However, I question these phrases:

"These words will provide a common basis for discussing service between all actors over the life of the building. They will also provide the groundwork for buildings to interact with actors external to themselves."

I don't think it is words only, but relationships between them on many levels ~ along with future building models and geographic information including all the data themselves (for example sensor reports) somehow associated with the building, its zones, its type, regional conditions and changing global conditions. Leveraging the common basis requires more than learning technical dictionaries to build models or collect data, but Owners and public services like fire departments and environmental boards need tools for going straight to and assembling parts of the building data as needed. Could be an immediate need like shutting down air handler 2, could be long term like BobSmiths issues in Huntington Beach.

"....these semantics will become the basis for interacting with BIM."
But BIM is also drawings and models, and even radio chips and GPS to know where a building, including its elements and programs, are located and how they are (supposed to be) constructed. Wouldn't a future owner like to get the blueprints and specifications, or check on the performance of a service of the building by clicking on device, scanning the place/readings/elements, to get only the data needed to present in simple form? There will always be more information available than the Owner or local jurisdiction needs.  If so, will this zooming, sorting and prioritizing be done using a keyboard or a mouse? I think the semantics will be hidden to most users.

Can you please post the entire scenario on the charter as a sample problem? Incorporating building spaces and system zones into the framework only means adding OCCS Table 13, Spaces by Function, (based on ISO Table 4.5 Spaces by function or user activity) and OCCS Table 13, Spaces by Form (based on ISO Table 4.4 Spaces by degree of enclosure.

If there can be scientific studies and maps of happiness, there can be a mathematical standard for the comfort index….

"Semantics are the words used to describe things. When similar things get the same name, we are making semantic decisions."
The difference between "flat paint finish" and "flat concrete finish" is quickly evident by the first 2 digits of Division 09 vs Division 06 in MasterFormat. CSI specifications and formats already have a lot of built in semantics. How should they be used most efficiently and effectively?

"The concrete basis for value in building services require a common semantic framework. At the highest level of abstraction, these services slide into ontology, where the building operator defines value. The building operator, or even the building designer, must be able to define value, to define the construction of the top level semantics.

And that is the swing between building service semantics and building service ontology." should also be added to the charter because it really explains why.

Thanks for writing that post and including the very strong feedback.  Ontologies do need to work in the real world too. Most of the technology is already available, sometimes its people that have a hard time interoperating.

Deborah





On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) <Toby.Considine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I was discussing the issues of this forum with several large commercial owners, this weekend. I got some very strong feedback as to what should be in, what should be out, and what should be left not completely pinned down…

I wrote about it in my blog

tc

 

Distinguishing Building Service Semantics from Ontologies

Building service performance is not handled well during building design because there is currently no accepted way for owners and designers to discuss the services desired and the performance expected for each service in simple general terms. Construction processes deliver diverse technical systems each discussed using concrete physical attributes whose effects are understood through a deep domain knowledge not often common to either owner or designer, or even to different contractors. This leads to specifying materials and processes rather than results, is ineffective in defining success after commissioning into long term operations and maintenance.

New demands that buildings interact dynamically with entities other than the owner and operator will soon require that provisioning of services be managed over the lifecycle of the building rather than merely for procedural completeness at building turnover. These external entities include power provision and emergency management. The transacted power grid will expect buildings to negotiate with remote, local, and internal energy suppliers to meet the needs of the occupants. Emergency Management will expect buildings to respond to environmental alerts, i.e., tornado warnings, to provide situational awareness after an event.

Over at ONTOLOG, several of us are formalizing new semantics to enable discussion of building services and their quality. These words will provide a common basis for discussing service between all actors over the life of the building. They will also provide the groundwork for buildings to interact with actors external to themselves.

If we do this right, these semantics will become the basis for interacting with BIM. Each area of knowledge and practice within the Building Information Model (BIM) has a formal interface to other areas of the BIM. This interface allows information to flow both ways. Information flows into an area to define goals and constraints. Information flows out of an area to provide results and requirements. This allows for multiple processes within each area. During design, the goal is to let the owner participate in decision earlier in the process. Imagine the following scenario.

During design, a six story building is designated as commercial space on the ground floor, a restaurant on the second, and office space for the next 4 floors. Quality indicators for all three types of space rely on the Effective Ventilation Index (EVI). Commercial Comfort Index is defined based upon room temperature, humidity, occupancy, and EVI. The standard for a strip mall is 1.0. The lessee, a high end store, requests that a CCI of 1.2 be provided, and documented by the underlying systems, and that it be done at a watts/square foot no worse than industry standard. The restaurant is divided into seating area, which uses the standard CCI and the catering area, in which a higher EVI is required by regulation. In the seating, the CCI must take into account the higher density of sitting customers as compared to the retail space downstairs. Office space is quite competitive and the local market has high vacancy rates. The owner wishes to promise Office Worker Alertness index greater if 0.8 (prevailing standard is 0.64) to achieve reduced vacancy in the prevailing market.

I shared this vision with Bo, a seasoned real estate professional who remains one of my more skeptical audiences. He vigorously objected. To Bo, a developer might choose to distinguish itself though having many more air turns per hour than the competition. They would still want to discuss the value in the same terms, but would not wish to be held to the same engineered standard of comfort. Bo vigorously objected to a mathematical standard for the comfort index….

This threw me for a loop. Then I recalled some spirited discussions from the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) groups. BPEL is the language for passing a work flow or business process around using web services. There have been spirited discussions about BPEL, including conversations that claim that BPEL is not useful because business process is the proprietary advantage of any business, and so therefore real business process will never be passed around. This seemed to align with Bo's comments.

Let me reprise semantics and ontology how I use these words. Semantics are the words used to describe things. When similar things get the same name, we are making semantic decisions. As people, semantics let us discuss the services provided by a system, and to compare and contrast how well those services are provided. To systems, semantics create a basis for interoperability and the creation of Services. Ontology, or meaning, is a way to discuss a value of the services; ontologies are variable. Crudely, accounting is a semantic system; cost accounting and financial accounting are different ontologies built upon common accounting semantics.

If we take this model, than I agree with Bo. The concrete basis for value in building services require a common semantic framework. At the highest level of abstraction, these services slide into ontology, where the building operator defines value. The building operator, or even the building designer, must be able to define value, to define the construction of the top level semantics.

And that is the swing between building service semantics and building service ontology.

 

 


"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- David Thoreau


Toby Considine

Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC

  

Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073

http://www.oasis-open.org
http://www.NewDaedalus.com

 

 



_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>