Dear Deborah, (01)
Just to tie this up for people not in the know... (02)
> The International Alliance for Interoperability has changed its name to
> building SMART international http://www.buildingsmart.com/. Another
> relevant ISO standard to add to your list is 16739 Industry Foundation
> Classes (IFC). Here is part of a diagram for referencing classes in IFC
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/FPML/IFC2xObjectDiagram%23141B04B
> .jpg. Please also see the Model View Definitions at http://www.blis-
> project.org/IAI-MVD/ for IFC data exchange, ideally supported by the
> IFD.
>
> There are a number of chasms and gaps in the connections from the IFCs,
> to the IFD, to EPISTLE and related standards. (03)
[MW] The EPISTLE work is standardised as ISO 15926 of course. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (07)
> Today, even though the
> files are huge and hard to push around or share real time, most
> building models are "at the gross level, there is very little
> difference between an ontology and a terminology". Nevertheless,
> accurate models at this level can be useful to public services such as
> fire departments to exchange basic information about building
> configurations and types because simple accuracy is all that is needed.
> There is still much work to do on consistency and flexible terminology
> for the simple level to work. As more data can be reported out from
> buildings to monitor performance such as energy efficiency on regional
> levels, it will be more and more important to reach consensus on a
> solid working ontology for the "detailed levels where all the complex
> reasoning and computations are carried out." Right now there is not one
> continuous chain of communication
> to do this.
>
> Building Information Models (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems
> (GIS) are converging at a rapid pace, the need for simple exchanges can
> get lost in the quest for the complex levels to work together. What I
> have been wishing for is someone really good in complex reasoning
> standards to take this 50,000 foot up hierarchy developed by the Open
> Geospatial Consortium and National Building Information Modeling
> Standard http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/ConferenceCall_2008-11-
> 28/NBIMHierarchicalRelationship.jpg and write it out in OWL or other
> preferred ontology language. I would like to develop a few scenarios
> and try working with this all the way through from top to bottom, from
> a component, node or room to the place of this thing in the whole
> world.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Deborah MacPherson
> Specifications and Research, Cannon Design
> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:46 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] International Alliance for Interoperability
>
> The subject line above states the name of an organization that is
> devoted to interoperability. That particular organization has its
> roots in the building industry, but every branch of science,
> engineering, and business has similar organizations.
>
> As an example of what they do, see their description of IFD:
>
> International Framework for Dictionaries (ISO 12006-3) is a
> library with terminology and ontologies assisting in identifying
> the type of information being exchanged. It is developed with
> the purpose of adding value to the IFCs and is language and
> culture independent.
>
> The International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD) (ISO 12006-3)
> standard is developed by ISO TC 59/SC 13/WG 6. Many of the members
> of the work group are also members of International Construction
> Information Society (ICIS ). The IFD standard has many similarities
> with the EPISTLE standard for the Oil and Gas industry.
>
> While the IFC standard describes objects, how they are connected,
> and how the information should be exanged and stored, the IFD
> standard uniquely describe what the objects are, and what
> properties, units and values they can have. IFD provides the
> dictionary, the definitions of concepts, the relationships between
> them and the common understanding necessary for the communication
> to flow smoothly.
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.iai-tech.org/products/related-
> specifications/ifd_specification
>
> That web page has a link to "IFD in a Nutshell", which gives examples:
>
> http://dev.ifd-library.org/index.php/Ifd:IFD_in_a_Nutshell
>
> The following diagram describes 'door':
>
> http://dev.ifd-library.org/images/thumb/8/8d/Ontology.png/450px-
> Ontology.png
>
> That diagram uses relations with the following names: 'is a type of',
> 'is a part of', 'consists of', 'can be', and 'relates to'.
>
> Those five relations by themselves (including the catchall 'relates
> to') provide a gross level classification, but they aren't sufficient
> for detailed reasoning. However, they are very important for
> searching, classifying, and natural language analysis and
> disambiguation.
>
> That level of detail is certainly insufficient for designing doors that
> can be interchanged among different buildings. Those details, however,
> have always been stated in very low-level specifications, such as
> traditional blueprints or CAD/CAM programs.
>
> Those two levels of specification are typical of every field:
>
> 1. A gross-level classification with very few relation types and
> few if any axioms.
>
> 2. A precise, extremely detailed specification that can support
> extended reasoning, computation, construction, and assembly.
>
> At the gross level, there is very little difference between an ontology
> and a terminology. The detailed levels are where all the complex
> reasoning and computations are carried out.
>
> If our ontology proposals are to be useful in practice, it is essential
> for us to recognize those two levels and incorporate them in any
> proposed standards or guidelines.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|
