Hi Joab, (01)
Per Peter's recommendation I would like to provide you with more description
about my background and standards work: (02)
MAIN: Specifications and Research, Cannon Design an architectural engineering
firm, please refer to http://www.cannondesign.com. Our building typologies
include healthcare, education from K-12 to university campus, public buildings
such as courthouses, commercial and sports arenas. I work with the
specifications and am trying to build an ontology to make sense of a growing
knowledge base and ease the transition from CAD to BIM. (03)
SECOND: Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics an interdisciplinary nonprofit
organization, please refer to http://accuracyandaesthetics.com our mission is
building consensus, treating the construction of semantic space as if it were a
series of large scale public building projects. Important goals include getting
tools such as the semantic web into the hands of regular people like teachers. (04)
WORKGROUPS, INTEGRAL TO BOTH ABOVE: (05)
National Building Information Modeling Standard: (06)
Consensus Task Team writing the procedures for the consensus process (hopefully
will begin voting soon!) and; (07)
Model Implementation Guide team, who reviews the Model View Definitions, please
refer to http://www.blis-project.org/IAI-MVD/ (08)
OmniClass http://www.omniclass.org/ (09)
Properties, Table 49. The term "properties" may have different meaning in other
communities. OmniClass properties have no meaning out of context, they are
assigned to elements in the other tables. Combining multiple properties with
multiple classifications in other tables can result in a rich description for
any one building or element. The current challenge is translating these very
long multi-component numbers into more compact human readable form. There is a
new, collaborative effort with the Open Geospatial consortium to define a small
set of location properties in the slides presented at the conference. (010)
Facility and Space Types - Tables 11 to 14
It can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish between a facility and space in
the context of the building codes, for example a garage could be its own
building or part of another building but this construction type is the same as
far as use groups go. There is starting to be overlap with the geospatial
community for structures and spaces such as outdoor amphitheaters, fish ponds,
and baseball fields that do not have walls or roofs. Ideally a small task force
can settle these, similar to the location properties, but a larger list of
items with a need for broader collaboration. For example participants from the
parks and recreation community and the US geological survey would add an
extremely helpful perspective. Guidance from the 15926 community is
particularly relevant at this time regarding the classification of space inside
process plants. In general, there have been concerns about where the building
space classes should stop above the floor. For example, cable trays and piping
that interfere with access and the definition of what is considered occupy-able
space. There are tax implications and similar concerns about giving names and
classifications to too many spaces that can be excluded from interior gross
areas (IE: rent and property value). Particularly Table 13, Spaces by Function
is also becoming very useful to report percentages and types of spaces used to
compare a model with the Owner's program or a jurisdiction's requirements. The
Facility Types especially Table 11 are useful for geospatial needs including
emergency response, allocation of resources and being able to study which
public services are covered in a particular area or across an entire state, the
country, or the world. (011)
Activities and Processes - how all the tables work together. (012)
Please incorporate whatever relevant points you can from above and thank you
Peter for bringing to my attention. (013)
Regards, (014)
Deborah MacPherson (015)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 6:35 PM
To: Joab Jackson
Cc: Stein, Ben; Ontology Summit 2009
Subject: [ontology-summit] GCN article on OntologySummit2009 by Joab Jackson -
2009.04.07 [was - Fwd: Slight amendment to Gerry's request, plus a synopsis
request] (016)
Hello Joab, (017)
Re your write-up at: http://gcn.com/articles/2009/04/07/nist-ontology.aspx (018)
Great job ... thank you *very* much for capturing the essence of such a complex
issue in such elegant prose! (019)
Regards. =ppy
-- (020)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Ray <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Slight amendment to Gerry's
request, plus a synopsis request
To: Joab Jackson <jjackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> (021)
Joab, (022)
I just wanted to personally thank you for covering our summit.
Since you posted the notice about the article to the ontology-summit list, I
imagine you are reading the responses that it has produced. Some people are
also squirming a bit about the title claiming data reuse is not possible
without ontological work (it's could be possible, but just much harder without
ontologies) but I imagine it would be difficult to change the title of the
article - and not very attention-grabbing if it were to say "Data reuse more
difficult without ontological work". I recognize the constant tension between
engineers and scientists on the one hand, who want to avoid overstepping a
claim, and the media (and the political world, I would
venture) who strive for clarity in a message. (023)
In any case, I will continue to think about the comments coming
in on the list, and review your article. If I come up with something that I
think is critical to amend, I will let you know. (024)
Thanks again, (025)
- Steve (026)
Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
Email: steve@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (650) 587-3780 (CA)
(202) 362-5059 (DC)
Cell: (202) 316-6481 (027)
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joab Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:07 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2009
Cc: Stein, Ben
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Slight amendment to Gerry's request, plus a
synopsis request (028)
Hello! (029)
Joab Jackson here from Government Computer News. I've written up a quick
summary of the communiqué and the meeting. We posted it
yesterday: (030)
http://gcn.com/articles/2009/04/07/nist-ontology.aspx (031)
I've tried to capture the details as accurately as possible, but if I made any
mistakes, please shoot me an email and we'll get them corrected. (032)
I know the new administration is talking quite a bit about government reuse of
data, so this topic is quite pertinent these days. (033)
Thanks again for letting me attend. (034)
Joab (035)
----------------------------------------------------- (036)
Joab Jackson
Senior Editor, Technology
Government Computer News
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 777
Falls Church, Va. 22042
1-(301)-576-9645 (037)
http://www.gcn.com (038)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (039)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (040)
|