Hi Finith,
Thank you for your inspiring and uplifting message. The only point I agree with you on is "the only solution is to start over".
I am more sick than you of talking about vs making. Some of Toby's tracks can be codified, classified, measured and presented in simple ways Owners can use.... on an iphone.
However, simple structure need to be made not only by naming, but relationships between the words. Many relationships which already exist in CSI and other standards~ contracts live in Div00 and 01 and OCCS 36. In Tobys slides 10 and 11, only one is Div 23 HVAC, one 26 Electrical, and 3 28 Electronic Safety and Security. Its not that many situations where "the control people" and the general public like rotary clubs are interested in the same discussions. You are right the new direction has to be proven out but its got to start.
Deborah On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Finith E Jernigan AIA < finith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Finith E. Jernigan AIA Design Atlantic Ltd
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.
Some background:
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:
- Capabilities Models
- One for each control silo
- Analytics Models
- Tenant Models
- 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 Occupancy
- WS-Buildings Performance (M&V, commissioning)
- WS-Buildings Analytics
-
WS-Buildings Tenant Services
tc
"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
Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC |
|
|
Hi Everyone, 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
**************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|