Hi Finith,
I have not
tried Twine yet, but the Traditional Chicken and Egg problem becomes more of a manageable
puzzle with WS. A similar discussion is going on about how BIM is “forcing”
Autodesk and Bentley to increasingly share libraries, and the NBIMS Models
& Implementation Guidance committee is urging us to get involved with
specific projects (i.e. pilot projects now being discussed at BSP Forum). Toby’s
3 year old slide includes references to Building Services, as well as that NIST
BISACS guide.
Toby, how does
your pBIX 2.0 project roadmap look today? What is iCal contract status?
Thanks, Finith,
for the reference to Jim Hendler’s article. I found it by Googling “Web
3.0 Chicken Farms” Jim Hendler
http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/menuitem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3
/index.jsp?&pName=computer_level1_article&TheCat=1075&path=computer/homepage/0108&file=webtech.xml&xsl=article.xsl&
Sorry, we were unable to find the requested page.
The page may have been deleted, moved, or renamed. If you feel you have
reached this message in error, please try again or contact our helpdesk.
Here is a guide to our site that may help you.
From:
bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Finith E Jernigan AIA
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008
11:26 AM
To: BSP Forum
Subject: Re: [bsp-forum] BISACS
It is daunting to wade into this discussion. I have been following the
thread for several days (weeks?) and waver between figuring out how to
unsubscribe and wanting to comment on the need for clarity on these issues.
Toby, I commend your 'hanging in' and trying to keep this issue on track. Too
many of these discussions are so deep in the weeds that I suspect not much will
ever come out of this in the end. The whole topic needs a clear and definable
end-goal and clarity of the process to get there. I am beginning to think that
it can only happen by throwing out much of what has gone before. I know that
most people's hearts are in the right place, but even with that, things do not
seem to be heading toward solutions. Is this whole area just about carrying on
a high level theoretical discourse? This seems to be the classic technology
battle of legacy systems/ideas and the inertia that they impose against new
processes/directions. Sometimes the only solution is to start over and hope
that everyone else will catch up when the new direction is proven out.
For those of you that haven't gotten involved in Twine and other
Semantic Web discussions, I suggest that you might want to give them a try.
Just today, an article was posted entitled, "Web 3.0: Chicken Farms on the
Semantic Web". You might find this article of interest related to the
wider context of this discussion. If you read down about 5 paragraphs there is
a section entitled, "Chicken-and-egg problems" that includes one of
the shorter, more understandable descriptions of how I perceive this.
It would seem that a high level discussion, moderated by the 'jargon
police' really needs to take place soon. Without reconciling the 'chicken or
egg' issues revolving around the BSP issue, I fear that it is on a path that
will in the long run lead no where.
To conclude this little rant - please recognize that I believe someone
will likely get fed up with the theoretical discussion and just do the things
that Toby has been describing. Fortunately our world is home to a few
individuals who just do stuff instead of only talking about it.
Architecture - Planning -
Management
Author of BIG BIM little bim
The practical approach to building
information modeling
Integrated practice done the right
way!
130 East Main Street - Salisbury,
MD 21801
t 410.548.9245 f
443.270.6094
On Jul 19, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT)
wrote:
Both of these
comments fit into the advertised-but-never-developed oBIX 2.0.
In oBIX 1.0, we had
to meet the need of the control companies. To do this, we produced a standard
abstraction of all of the base activities of an embedded control system. This
provides a standards-based way to get to all functions of a traditional control
system, to read all points and sensors in a traditional embedded system, to
receive events, and to request trends and logs.
oBIX 1.0, however,
is not for the faint of heart, or at least, anyone not in the systems/controls
world. It is still detail oriented. It interacts too intimately with all system
functions. It cannot be safely shared with anyone who might interfere with
proper system operations.
One problem is that
security at this level of detail does not even make sense. What does it mean,
in terms of business process, to “secure a sensor”, or
“secure a set point”. Unless and until the sensor means something,
or the set point is associated with something the owner would recognize,
security is, and must be, all or nothing.
oBIX 1.1 remains
tied to the goals of 1.0, and has three goals. (1) Errata and ambiguities, (2)
adding an RSS or Atom binding to expand the range of non-technical
interactions, and (3) developing an enterprise-type scheduling function, based
around ICAL, for oBIX contracts.
As to oBIX 2.0. I
have come to realize that it will *never*
come out of the traditional controls companies. They like it down there in the
controls. For me, BSP, is naming the things that need to be incorporated into
oBIX 2.0. Clearly, some of the concepts have changed, but I have a PowerPoint
from more than 3 years ago attached. I would draw you attention to the scanned
image on slide 6, describing the systems that need to interact on a campus
(not, this was 7 months before the GridWise Constitutional Convention, and does
not incorporate *those* concepts).
The list on Slide 7
is relevant to this forum, suggesting that we have:
- One for each control silo
- Cross-Silos “The Room”
- Uses: Schedules and Variable Costs
These may have some
similarities to the IDM ways of thinking.
Pull up slide 8 and
let it build – it makes more sense that way.
Slides 10, 11 look,
again, like this forum:
- WS-Buildings HVAC (based on GPC 20)
- WS-Buildings Power
- WS-Buildings Access Control
- WS-Buildings Intrusion Detection
- WS-Buildings CCTV
- WS-Buildings Performance (M&V, commissioning)
- WS-Buildings Analytics
- WS-Buildings Tenant Services
"When one door
closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the
closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us." --
Alexander Graham Bell
Chair, OASIS oBIX
TC
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
|
|
|
I some time the last couple days reading
through OASIS policies and procedures for something I'm working on for NBIMS
Consensus. I also looked at OBIX in more detail and have been thinking
about OBIX, in relation to BSP, in relation to NBIMS. In general, the scenarios
and exchanges get bigger and need to be more generic from one to the next.
There has got to be some vertical modularity and standards also.
Obviously protocols and access procedures
like the NIST report will be so important because control over building systems
is not something that should fall into the wrong hands. What I'm concerned
about is the accuracy and completeness of the data in the first place. 1.
Sensors can fail or be inaccurate. 2. The structural DESIGN of a building may
not be the actual building, and the building 50 years later is in a different
condition that may not be captured - how is ALL the building data kept up to
date and accurate?
For example in the NIST report Fig 25, pg
39 = what if this was the old layout and walls or equipment have moved? Can the
equipment or walls keep themselves up to date in the most generic models?
At WDG, almost every building ends up with
a series of "Typical Floors" in other words there is only one plan
drawing for the 3rd to 10th floors because they are all the same. What might be
similar to a typical floor in OBIX, BSP, NBIMS? What is the shortcut for future
standards like BISACS?
Hi Toby,
Do you mean this NIST document?
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/art005.html
If so, it presents a set of services. How does it play with
the oBIX standard 1.x and how might it fit into the oBIX 2.0 thinking?
Thanks,
Bob
Has the group looked at the BISACS services
yet?
tc
"There are a thousand hacking at the
branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- David Thoreau
--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
**************************************************
<RoadMapToOBIXv2.ppt>
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|