Considering the Feasibility of Semantic Model Design in the Built-Environment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Semantics in the Construction Domain
Sources | Tagged Activity | Domain Problem | Built Environment |
---|---|---|---|
[15] | Designing | Architectural Design | Building Design |
[16] | Engineering | ||
[17] | Designing | Conceptual Design | |
[18] | Appraising | Energy Efficiency | |
[19,20] | Collaborating | Interoperability | |
[21] | Checking | Regulation | |
[22] | Designing | Structural Design | |
[23] | Monitoring | Building | Building Performance |
[24] | Managing | Defect Management | |
[25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] | Appraising | Energy Efficiency | |
[39] | Checking | Regulation | |
[40] | e-Learning | Knowledge Representation | Construction Project Management |
[41] | Learning | ||
[42] | Sharing | ||
[43,44] | Managing | Construction | |
[45,46,47,48,49,50,51] | Estimating | Cost Estimation | |
[52] | Integrating | Interoperability | |
[53] | Managing | Plant Construction | |
[54] | Collaborating | Process Management | |
[55] | Exchanging | Project Management | |
[56,57,58,59] | Managing | ||
[60] | Sharing | ||
[10,61] | Scheduling | Project Schedule | |
[62,63,64,65,66,67] | Checking | Regulation | |
[68,69] | Appraising | Risk Management | |
[70,71] | Managing | Site Management | |
[72] | Controlling | Spatial Relation | |
[73] | Modelling | Architectural Reconstruction | Existing Building |
[74] | Optimizing | Energy Consumption | Facility Management |
[75] | Simulating | Hydrodynamic Processes | |
[76,77,78] | Collaborating | Interoperability | |
[79,80] | Collaborating | Knowledge Representation | |
[81] | Sharing | ||
[82,83,84] | Collaborating | Interoperability | General Construction |
[85,86,87] | Implementing | ||
[88] | Integrating | ||
[89] | Conceptualizing | ||
[90,91,92,93] | Modelling | Context | Smart homes |
[94] | Controlling | Home Automation | |
[95] | Collaborating | Interoperability | |
[96] | Implementing | Building | Sustainability |
[97,98] | Appraising | Environment | |
[99] | Collaborating | Interoperability | |
[100] | Sharing | Knowledge Representation | |
[101] | Managing | Carbon management | |
[102] | Modelling | Architecture Design | Urban Design |
[103,104] | Modelling | Civil Engineering | |
[105] | Planning | Design | |
[106] | Researching | Energy Efficiency | |
[107] | Planning | Structure | |
[108,109,110] | Collaborating | Interoperability | |
[111] | Appraising | Landscaping | |
[112] | Designing | ||
[113] | Planning | Panels Management | |
[114] | Planning | Project Plan | |
[115] | Identifying | Slum | |
[116] | Inferring | Spatial Relation | |
[117] | Planning | ||
[118] | Identifying | Structural Design | |
[119] | Modelling | Urban Modelling |
Domain | Building Design | Building Performance | Construction Project Management | Existing Building | Facility Management | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Language & Structure | ||||||
Frame, OO | 6 | 11 | 19 | 1 | 5 | |
Not specified | 1 | |||||
ifcXML | 1 | 1 | ||||
CityGML | ||||||
OWL | 5 | 10 | 18 | 1 | 4 | |
OWL 2 | 1 | |||||
UML + OWL | ||||||
Hierarchy | 3 | |||||
Not specified | 2 | |||||
Taxonomy | 1 | |||||
Network | 2 | 1 | ||||
Conceptual modelling | 1 | |||||
PSL | 2 | |||||
Tagging | 1 | 1 | ||||
Not specified | ||||||
XML | 1 | 1 | ||||
Generic | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | ||
Not specified | 1 | 1 | ||||
Reference model | 1 | |||||
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) | 1 | |||||
IFC-based | 1 | 4 | 1 | |||
Not specified | 2 | 4 | ||||
Not specified | 2 | 4 | ||||
Relational | 1 | |||||
DL | ||||||
Not specified | 1 | |||||
Grand Total | 8 | 17 | 34 | 1 | 7 | |
Frame, OO | 7 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 68 | |
Not specified | 1 | 2 | ||||
ifcXML | 2 | |||||
CityGML | 1 | 1 | ||||
OWL | 7 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 60 | |
OWL 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||
UML+OWL | 1 | 1 | ||||
Hierarchy | 3 | |||||
Not specified | 2 | |||||
Taxonomy | 1 | |||||
Network | 3 | |||||
Conceptual modelling | 1 | |||||
PSL | 2 | |||||
Tagging | 1 | 2 | 4 | |||
Not specified | 1 | 1 | ||||
XML | 1 | 3 | ||||
Generic | 2 | 1 | 13 | |||
Not specified | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
Reference model | 1 | |||||
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) | 1 | |||||
IFC-based | 1 | 7 | ||||
Not specified | 1 | 3 | 10 | |||
Not specified | 1 | 3 | 10 | |||
Relational | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
DL | 1 | 1 | ||||
Not specified | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
Grand Total | 8 | 6 | 6 | 18 | 105 |
Language & Structure | Frame, OO | Generic | Hierarchy | Relational | Network | Tagging | Not specified | Grand Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domain Activities | |||||||||
Appraising | 14 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 | ||||
Checking | 6 | 2 | 8 | ||||||
Collaborating | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 15 | |||
Conceptualizing | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Controlling | 2 | 2 | |||||||
Designing | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |||||
e-Learning | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Estimating | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||||
Identifying | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
Inferring | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Integrating | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||||
Learning | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Managing | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 | |||
Modelling | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 | |||
Monitoring | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Optimizing | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Planning | 4 | 1 | 5 | ||||||
Researching | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Scheduling | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
Sharing | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||
Simulating | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Grand Total | 65 | 13 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 105 |
3. An Ontology Development Guide
4. Classification Structures Used in Conceptual Modeling
- Domain corpus (the number of important concept types in the semantic domain);
- Presence of formal categories (the extent to which categories are simple and derivable);
- Stability of entities (possibility or likelihood of entity types change);
- Restricted or unrestricted entity set (whether the set of important entities is inherently limited or grows continuously);
- Presence of clear boundaries between entities.
4.1. Hierarchical Classification Schemes
4.2. Network Models
4.3. Relational Models
4.4. Object-Oriented Model Design
4.5. Tagging
4.6. Generic Data Models
5. Defining Solution Feasibility
- What is the problem?
- What is the boundary of the model? What factors are endogenous? Exogenous? Excluded? Are soft variables included? Are feedback effects properly taken into account? Does the model capture possible side effects, both harmful and beneficial?
- What is the time horizon relevant to the problem? Does the model include components that may change significantly over the time horizon?
- Are people assumed to act rationally in order to optimize their performance? Does the model take non-economic behavior (organizational realities, non-economic motives, political factors, cognitive limitations) into account?
- Does the model assume people have perfect information about the future and about the way the system works, or does it take into account the limitations, delays and errors in acquiring information that plague decision makers in the real world?
- Are appropriate time delays, constraints and possible bottlenecks taken into account?
- Is the model robust in the face of extreme variations in input assumptions?
- Are the policy recommendations derived from the model sensitive to plausible variations in its assumptions?
- Are the results of the model reproducible? Or are model results adjusted (add factored) by the model builder?
- Is the team that built it currently operating the model? How long does it take for the model team to evaluate a new situation, modify the model, and incorporate new data?
- Is the model documented? Is the documentation publicly available? Can third parties use the model and run their own analyses with it?
5.1. Assessment of the Model’s Purpose
- Is the purpose of the building model clear and well defined?
- Does the purpose entail a large model boundary? If so, is assess whether resources and time available to develop a sufficiently detailed model in order to meet its requirements.
- Given the assessed complexity of the problem, what is the likelihood that the building model will be semantically appropriate, given the state of the art in modeling techniques, technologies and the project’s context (team, available resources, support etc.).
- Is a building model necessary or adequate in solving the construction problem?
5.2. Domain Assessment
- Is the semantic domain to be addressed by the model clear?
- What is the size of the domain in terms of the number of variables, entities, attributes and relationships to be represented?
- To what extent are the building model and semantic domain stakeholders in agreement as to its structure, as expressed via, for instance, ontology?
- Is the semantic domain highly interrelated with other sectors? How does this complicate the building model? What would be the effect of treating related sectors as exogenous and will this affect the model’s validity?
- What is the perceived difficulty of modeling the structure or behavior of the domain?
5.3. Difficulty of Accurately Representing the Domain: Physical Versus Social Systems
- Is the team intending to develop the model aware of the differences in complexity and methods between developing social and physical models?
- Is the team sufficiently skilled in the relevant domains, i.e., physical/social, to develop an accurate model?
5.4. Understanding and Assessment of Alternative Modeling Methods
- Which semantic modeling methods could be used to solve the problem?
- What are the capabilities, advantages and disadvantages of using a particular method?
- Will the results that may be gained from adopting a particular method meet the model’s purpose? For example, optimization models cannot be used to predict behavior.
- Which methods are applicable to the semantic domain?
5.5. Model Boundary
- What are the key variables and relationships in the problem domain?
- Which factors should be included as endogenous, which as exogenous?
- Are there key factors or a significant number of factors, which can only be represented, as exogenous? If so, to what extent will this undermine the model’s semantic validity?
- What other domains/sectors are related to the problem domain via feedback relationships? Should these also be included in the model?
- Sensitivity analysis: To what extent does alternative plausible estimates of exogenous variables affect the model’s output?
- How frequently are the exogenous variables likely to change, what impact will this have on the model’s results and semantic validity?
5.6. Analysis of Required Input Data
- Is data to be used as input for the model available or does it have to be collected?
- How easy is it to collect input data, if required?
- If the data is already available, is it accurate, complete, up-to-date, unbiased and from a reliable source?
- If the data must be collected, does it consist primarily of hard or soft variables? Does the modeling team have sufficient expertise to collect data?
5.7. Reliance on Assumptions
5.8. Assessment of Modeling Team
- Which skills are required to complete the project successfully?
- Expertise in which domains is required/preferred?
- Does the team have sufficient expertise in all required areas?
- If the model’s problem domain includes multiple related sectors, seek out experts in related fields and gain a better understanding of the number and importance of possible feedback effects. Also consider modifying team and process to develop the model using a multi-disciplinary approach as part of an effort to broaden the model’s boundary and increase its validity.
- If the proposed model design ignored related domains, what effect is this likely to have on the model’s semantic validity?
5.9. Inclusion of Delays and Human Error for Optimization and Forecasting Models
- What types of delay are significant when implementing the guidelines, which will be produced by the model?
- What values should be assigned to the delay lengths and are these delays fixed, or, are they variable and dependent on other factors?
- How can we represent the effects of human error in implementing the model’s advise? How will errors affect delays?
5.10. Technical Considerations
5.11. Fostering Trust in Models’ Structure and Results
- Are the purpose, structure and behavior of the model, or any of its components, classified? If not, consider making them and their documentation available publicly, or to interested parties.
- Can and should the model be made publicly, or widely, available?
6. Managing Project Feasibility and Domain Semantics
6.1. Feasibility Study and Risk Assessment
6.2. Selection of Method for Managing Domain Semantics
6.3. Selection of Implementation Method
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, E.; Shoben, E.; Rips, L. Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychol. Rev. 1974, 81, 214–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarino, N.; Borgo, S.; Masolo, C. Logical Modelling of Product Knowledge: Towards a Well-Founded Semantics for STEP. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Product Data Technology, Sophia Antipolis, France, 16–17 April 1997; pp. 183–190.
- Ludlow, P. Semantics, Tense, and Time: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Natural Language; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Aristotle, I. Metaphysics. In Complete Works of Aristotle; Barnes, J., Princeton, N., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, I.; Caygill, H.; Banham, G. Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd ed.; Smith, N.K., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Guarino, N. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In Proceedings of the 1st FOIS Conference (FOIS’98), Trento, Italy, 6–8 June 1998; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
- Codd, E.F. Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1979, 4, 397–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, T. Developing a New Thesaurus for Art and Architecture. Libr. Trends 1990, 38, 644–658. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, J.; Trivedi, P.; Law, K.H. Ontology Mapping between PSL and XML-Based Standards for Project Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1–2 July 2002.
- ISO 16739 Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
- ISO/TS 15926–8 Industrial automation systems and integration—Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities—Part 8: Implementation methods for the integration of distributed systems: Web Ontology Language (OWL) implementation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
- ISO 10303–28 Industrial automation systems and integration—Product data representation and exchange—Part 28: Implementation methods: XML representations of EXPRESS schema and data. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
- Niles, I.; Pease, A. Towards a Standard Upper Ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Ogunquit, ME, USA, 17–19 October 2001; pp. 2–9.
- Aksamija, A.; Grobler, F. Architectural ontology: Development of machine-readable representations for building design drivers. Comput. Civil Eng. 2007, 2007, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, J.; Wang, Y. IFC-based construction engineering domain ontology development. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 6, 431–434. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.; Grobler, F. Building ontology to support reasoning in early design. Comput. Civil Eng. 2007, 19, 151–159. [Google Scholar]
- McGibbney, L.J.; Kumar, B. The WOMBRA Project: A Web-Based Ontology-Enhanced Multi-Purpose Building-Regulation Retrieval Application for Scottish Technical Standards. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of CIB W78, Sophia Antipolis, France, 26–28 October 2011; p. 64.
- Yang, Q.Z.; Zhang, Y. Semantic interoperability in building design: Methods and tools. Comput.-Aided Des. 2006, 38, 1099–1112. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, L.E.R. Ontological CAD Data Interoperability Framework. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, Florence, Italy, 25–30 October 2010; pp. 79–82.
- Zhang, L.; Issa, R.R.A. Development of IFC-based Construction Industry Ontology for Information Retrieval from IFC Models. In Proceedings of the 2011 Eg-Ice Workshop, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 6–8 July 2011.
- Zhang, X.; Di, R.; Liang, Y. Ontology Based Knowledge Modeling for Structural Engineering Experiment Information Management. In Proceedings of the 2010 9th International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing, Nanjing, China, 1–5 November 2010; pp. 40–45.
- Dibley, M.; Li, H.; Rezgui, Y.; Miles, J. An ontology framework for intelligent sensor-based building monitoring. Autom. Constr. 2012, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Katranuschkov, P.; Rybenko, K.; Scherer, R.J. Ontology-Based Dynamic Process Support on the Example of Defect Management. In Proceedings of the 26th CIB W078 Conference Managing IT in Construction, Istanbul, Turkey, 1–3 October 2009; pp. 339–350.
- Xu, J.; Lee, Y.-H.; Tsai, W.-T.; Li, W.; Son, Y.-S.; Park, J.-H.; Moon, K.-D. Ontology-Based Smart Home Solution and Service Composition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS2009), Hangzhou, China, 25–27 May 2009; pp. 297–304.
- Kumar, V.; Tomic, S.; Pellegrini, T.; Fensel, A.V.; Mayrhofer, R. User Created Machine-readable Policies for Energy Efficiency in Smart Homes. In Proceedings of Ubicomp 2010 Workshop: Ubiquitous Computing for Sustainable Energy (UCSE 2010), Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–29 September 2010.
- Tomic, S.; Fensel, A.; Pellegrini, T. SESAME Demonstrator: Ontologies, Services and Policies for Energy Efficiency. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Semantic Systems (I-SEMANTICS 2010), Graz, Austria, 1–3 September 2010.
- Wicaksono, H.; Rogalski, S.; Kusnady, E. Knowledge-Based Intelligent Energy Management Using Building Automation System. In Proceedings of the 9th International Power and Energy Conference, Singapore, 27–29 October 2010.
- Daouadji, A.; Nguyen, K.-K.; Lemay, M.; Cheriet, M. Ontology-Based Resource Description and Discovery Framework for Low Carbon Grid Networks. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 4–6 October 2010.
- Rossello Busquet, A.; Brewka, L.; Soler, J.; Dittmann, L. OWL Ontologies and SWRL Rules Applied to Energy Management. In Proceedgs of the 13th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, IEEE, Cambridge, UK, 30 March–1 April 2011; pp. 446–450.
- Han, J.; Jeong, Y.-K.; Lee, I. Efficient Building Energy Management System Based on Ontology, Inference Rules, and Simulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Building and Management, Singapore, 2–4 May 2011; pp. 295–299.
- Kofler, M.; Reinisch, C.; Kastner, W. A semantic representation of energy- related information in future smart homes. Energy Build. 2011, 47, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, N.; Chao, K.; Zlamaniec, T.; Matei, A. Ontology for home energy management domain. Commun. Comput. Inform. Sci. 2011, 167, 337–347. [Google Scholar]
- Kofler, M.; Reinisch, C.; Kastner, W. An Ontological Weather Representation for Improving Energy-Efficiency in Interconnected Smart Home Systems. In Proceedings of the Applied Simulation and Modelling/Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (ASC2012), Napoli, Italy, 25–27 June 2012.
- Curry, E.; Jentzsch, A.; Cyganiak, R. Cross-domain Building Optimisation Using Scenario Modelling and Linked Data. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Linked Data in Architecture and Construction (LDAC2012), Ghent, Belgium, 28–29 March 2012.
- Nemirovski, G.; Sicilia, A.; Galán, F.; Massetti, L.M. Ontological Representation of Knowledge Related to Building Energy Efficiency. In Proceedings of the SEMAPRO 2012, The 6th International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, Barcelona, Spain, 23–28 September 2012.
- Cotterell, M.; Zheng, J.; Sun, Q.; Wu, Z.; Champlin, C.; Beach, A. Facilitating Knowledge Sharing and Analysis in Energy Informatics with the Ontology for Energy Investigations (OEI). In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS'12), Graz, Austria, 24–27 July 2012; Volume 12.
- Gursel, I.; Sariyildiz, S.; Akin, O.; Stouffs, R. Modeling and visualization of lifecycle building performance assessment. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2009, 23, 396–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauwels, P.; Deursen, D. V; Verstraeten, D.R.; de Meyer, R.; de Walle, R. V; Campenhout, J.V. A semantic rule checking environment for building performance checking. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 506–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, V.; Shaik, A.; Aouad, G. An ontology of construction education for e-learning via the semantic web. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2006, 2, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
- Pathmeswaran, R.; Ahmed, V. SWmLOR: Technologies for developing semantic web-based mobile learning object repository. Built Hum. Environ. Rev. 2011, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Argüello, M.; El-Hasia, A.; Lees, M. Using Semantic Web Technologies to Bridge the Language Gap between Academia and Industry in the Construction Sector. In Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XIV; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 135–148. [Google Scholar]
- El-Diraby, T.; Lima, C.; Feis, B. Domain taxonomy for construction concepts: Toward a formal ontology for construction knowledge. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 2005, 19, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, C.; El-Diraby, T.; Stephens, J. Ontology-based optimisation of knowledge management in e-construction. ITcon 2005, 10, 305–327. [Google Scholar]
- Staub-French, S.; Fischer, M.; Kunz, J.; Ishii, Kos.; Paulson, B. A feature ontology to support construction cost estimating. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2003, 17, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.-S.; Wang, M.-H.; Chen, J.J. Ontology-based intelligent decision support agent for CMMI project monitoring and control. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2008, 48, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abanda, F.H.; Tah, J.H. M.; Pettang, C.; Manjia, M. An ontology-driven house-building labour cost estimation in Cameroon. ITcon 2011, 16, 617–634. [Google Scholar]
- Fidan, G.; Dikmen, I.; Tanyer, A.; Birgonul, M. Ontology for relating risk and vulnerability to cost overrun in international projects. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 2011, 25, 302–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Wei, Z. Framework for Automatic Construction Cost Estimation Based on BIM and Ontology Technology. In Proceedings of the 29th CIB W78 International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 17–19 October 2012.
- Kim, H.; Anderson, K.; Lee, S.H.; Hildreth, J. Generating construction schedules through automatic data extraction using open BIM (building information modeling) technology. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.-K.; Kim, K.-R.; Yu, J.-H. BIM and ontology-based approach for building cost estimation. Autom. Constr. 2014, 41, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, R.J.; Schapke, S.-E. A distributed multi-model-based management information system for simulation and decision-making on construction projects. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 582–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Diraby, T.E.; Briceno, F. Taxonomy for outside plant construction in telecommunication infrastructure: Supporting knowledge-based virtual teaming. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2005, 11, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Gohary, N.; El-Diraby, T. Domain ontology for processes in infrastructure and construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 730–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruikar, D.; Anumba, C.J.; Duke, A.; Carrillo, P.M.; Bouchlaghem, N.M. Using the semantic web for project information management. Facilities 2007, 25, 507–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Kumar, B.; Law, K.H. A question answering system for project management applications. J. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2002, 16, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Law, K.H.; Kumar, B. Integrating Project Management Applications as Web Services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Loughborough, UK, 25–27 June 2003.
- El-Diraby, T.; Kashif, K.F. Distributed ontology architecture for knowledge management in highway construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaprasad, A.; Prakash, A.N.; Rammurthy, N. Construction Project Management System (CPMS): An Ontological Framework. In Proceedings of the Research and Education Conference (PMIREC), Pune, India, 9 December 2011.
- Venugopal, M.; Eastman, C.M.; Sacks, R.; Teizer, J. Semantics of model views for information exchanges using the industry foundation class schema. J. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 26, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Law, K.H. Using Process Specification Language for Project Information Exchange. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1–2 July 2002.
- Yurchyshyna, A.; Faron-Zucker, C.; Le Thanh, N.; Lima, C.; Zarli, A. Towards an Ontology-Based Approach for Conformance Checking Modeling in Construction. In Proceedings of the 24th W78 Conference, Maribor, Slovenia, 27–29 June 2007.
- Yurchyshyna, A.; Faron-Zucker, C.; Le Thanh, N.; Lima, C.; Zarli, A. Ontological Approach for the Conformity-Checking Modelling in Construction. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Enterprise Formation Systems (ICEIS2008), Barcelona, Spain, 12–16 June 2008.
- Yurchyshyna, A.; Zarli, A. An ontology-based approach for formalisation and semantic organisation of conformance requirements in construction. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 1084–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Grobler, F. Design coordination in Building Information Modeling (BIM) using ontological consistency checking. Comput. Civil Eng. 2009, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yurchyshyna, A.; Faron-Zucker, C.; Le Thanh, N.; Zarli, A. Knowledge capitalisation and organisation for conformance checking model in construction. Int. J. Knowl. Eng. Soft Data Paradig. 2010, 2, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, B.T.; Ding, L.Y.; Luo, H.B.; Zhou, Y.; Hu, H.M. Ontology-based semantic modeling of regulation constraint for automated construction quality compliance checking. Autom. Constr. 2012, 28, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Diraby, T.A.; Gill, S M. A taxonomy for construction terms in privatized-infrastructure finance: Supporting semantic exchange of project risk information. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tserng, H.P.; Yin, S.Y.L.; Dzeng, R.J.; Wou, B.; Tsai, M.D.; Chen, W.Y. A study of ontology-based risk management framework of construction projects through project life cycle. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 994–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elghamrawy, T.; Boukamp, F. A Vision for a Framework to Support Management of and Learning from Construction Problems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Formation Technology in Construction: Improving the Management of Construction Projects Through IT Adoption, Santiago, Chile, 15–17 July 2008.
- Elghamrawy, T.; Boukamp, F.; Kim, H.-S. Ontology-Based Semi-Automatic Framework for Storing and Retrieving On-Site Construction Problem Information—An RFID-Based Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2009 Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009; pp. 457–466.
- Lee, J.S.; Lee, Y.S.; Min, K.M.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.J. Building Ontology to Implement the BIM (Building Information Modeling) Focused on Pre-Design Stage. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics Construction, Vilnius, Lithuania, 27–29 June 2008.
- Cruz, C.; Marzani, F.; Boochs, F. Ontology-driven 3D reconstruction of architectural objects. Comput. Vision Imag. Comput. Graph. Theory Appl. 2007, 2007, 47–54. [Google Scholar]
- Dibley, M.J.; Li, H.; Miles, J.C.; Rezgui, Y. Towards intelligent agent based software for building related decision support. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, A.S.; Piasecki, M. Ontology based web simulation system for hydrodynamic modelling. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2008, 16, 754–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schevers, H.A.; Mitchell, J.; Akhurst, P.; Marchant, D.M.; Bull, S.; McDonald, K.; Drogemuller, R.M.; Linning, C. Towards digital facility modelling for Sydney Opera house using IFC and Semantic Web technology. Inform. Technol. Constr. 2007, 12, 347–362. [Google Scholar]
- Curry, E.; O’Donnell, J.; Corry, E. Building Optimisation Using Scenario Modeling and Linked Data. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Linked Data in Architecture and Construction (LDAC2012), Ghent, Belgium, 28–29 March 2012.
- Curry, E.; O’Donnell, J.; Corry, E.; Hasan, S.; Keane, M.; O’Riain, S. Linking building data in the cloud: Integrating cross-domain building data using linked data. J. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 27, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanlande, R.; Cruz, C.; Nicolle, C. IFC and buildings lifecycle management. Autom. Constr. 2008, 18, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauher, M.; Smokvina, V. Municipal asset and property management system for the web collaborative environment. Available online: http://www.majorcities.eu/generaldocuments/pdf/municipal_asset_and_property_management_system_for_the_web_collaborative_environment.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2014).
- Vanlande, R.; Nicolle, C. Semantic Web technologies for facilities management. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Formation Management, Lyon, France, 28–31 August 2007.
- Pauwels, P.; de Meyer, R.; van Campenhout, J. Interoperability for the design and construction industry through semantic web technology. Semant. Multimed. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2010, 6725, 143–158. [Google Scholar]
- Pauwels, P.; Deursen, D.V. IFC/RDF: Adaptation, Aggregation and Enrichment. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Liked Data Architecture and Construction (LDAC2012), Ghent, Belgium, 28 March 2012.
- Schevers, H.; Drogemuller, R. Converting Industry Foundation Classes to the Web Ontology Language. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid, Washington, DC, USA, 27–29 November 2005; p. 73.
- Shen, L.; Chua, D.K.H. Application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Information Technology (IT) for Project Collaboration. In Proceedings of the EPPM, Singapore, 20–21 September 2011.
- Madrazo, L.; Costa, G. Open Product Modelling and Interoperability in the AEC Sector. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Linked Data Architecture and Construction (LDAC2012), Ghent, Belgium, 28–29 March 2012.
- Törmä, S.; Oraskari, J.; Hoang, N. Distributed Transactional Building Information Management. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Linked Data Architecture and Construction (LDAC2012), Ghent, Belgium, 28–29 March 2012.
- Scherer, R.J.; Katranuschkov, P.; Kadolsky, M.; Laine, T. Ontology-Based Building Information Model for Integrated Lifecycle Energy Management. In eWork Ebus. Architecture, Engineering and Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 951–956. [Google Scholar]
- Pauwels, P.; Deursen, D.V.; de Roo, J.; Ackere, T.V.; de Meyer, R.; de Walle, R.V. Three-dimensional information exchange over the Semantic Web for the domain of architecture, engineering, and construction. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2011, 25, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, T.; Wang, X.H.; Zhang, D.Q. An Ontology-Based Context Model in Intelligent Environments. In Proceedings of the Communication Networks and Distributed Systems Modelling and Simulation Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 17–24 January 2004.
- Ricquebourg, V.; Durand, D.; Menga, D.; Marhic, B.; Delahoche, L.; Loge, C.; Jolly-Desodt, A.-M. Context Inferring in the Smart Home: An SWRL Approach. In Proceedings of the AAW 2007 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Advanced Formation Networking and Applications Workshops, Niagara Falls, Canada, 21–23 May 2007.
- Meshkova, E.; Riihijarvi, J.; Mahonen, P.; Kavadias, C. Modelling the Home Environment Using Ontology with Applications in Software Configuration Management. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT2008), 16–19 June 2008.
- Reinisch, C.; Kofler, M.; Iglesias, F.; Kastner, W. ThinkHome energy efficiency in future smart homes. J. Embed. Syst. 2011, 2011, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Valiente-Rocha, P.A.; Lozano-Tello, A. Ontology and SWRL-based learning model for home automation controlling. Adv. Intell. Soft Comput. 2010, 72, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Abdulrazak, B.; Chikhaoui, B.; Gouin-Vallerand, C.; Fraikin, B. A standard ontology for smart spaces. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2010, 6, 244–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tah, J.H. M.; Abanda, F.H. Sustainable building technology knowledge representation: Using semantic web techniques. J. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrido, J.; Requena, I. Proposal of ontology for environmental impact assessment: An application with knowledge mobilization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 2462–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edum-Fotwe, F.T.; Price, A.D.F. A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction projects and developments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzolia, A.E.; Schimak, G.; Donatellic, M.; Hrebicek, J.; Avellinoe, G.; Monf, J.L.; Athanasiadis, I. TaToo: Tagging Environmental Resources on the Web by Semantic Annotations. In Proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2010 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Modelling for Environment’s Sake, 5th Biennial Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 5–8 July 2010.
- Kumazawa, T.; Saito, O.; Kozaki, K.; Matsui, T.; Mizoguchi, R. Toward knowledge structuring of sustainability science based on ontology engineering. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2009, 4, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.J.; Rezgui, Y.; Miles, J.C.; Wilson, I. Low Carbon Ontology Development Using Information Retrieval Techniques. In eWork and eBusess Architecture, Engineering and Construction Proceedings of the European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, Cork, Ireland, 14–16 September 2010.
- Mignard, C.; Gesquiere, G.; Nicolle, C. SIGA3D: A Semantic BIM Extension to Represent Urban Environment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advances Semantic Processing, Lisbon, Portugal, 20–25 November 2011.
- Trausan-Matu, S.; Neacsu, A. An Ontology-Based Intelligent Information System for Urbanism and Civil Engineering Data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of the COST Action C21-Towntology, Turin, Italy, 17–18 October 2007.
- El-Diraby, T.E.; Osman, H. A domain ontology for construction concepts in urban infrastructure products. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1120–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacasta, J.; Nogueras-Iso, J.; Zarazaga-Soria, F.J.; Muro-Medrano, P.R. Generating an Urban Domain Ontology through the Merging of Cross-Domain Lexical Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of the COST Action C21-Towntology, Turin, Italy, 17–18 October 2007.
- Lannon, S.; Linovski, O. Ontologies for the Classification of Urban Characteristics: Opportunities for Urban Designers. In Proceedings of the Fall Conference of the COST Action C21-Towntology: Urban Ontologies for an Improved Communication Urban Development Projects, Liège, France, 9–10 March 2009; pp. 59–67.
- Kaza, N.; Hopkins, L.D. Ontology for land development decisions and plans. Ontol. Urban Dev. 2007, 61, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
- MÃctral, C.; Falquet, G.; Cutting-Decelle, A.F. Towards Semantically Enriched 3D City Models: An Ontology-Based Approach. In Proceedings of the GeoWeb 2009 Academic Track-Cityscapes, Vancouver, Canada, 27–31 July 2009.
- Metral, C.; Billen, R.; Cutting-Decelle, A.F.; van Ruymbeke, M. Ontology-based approaches for improving the interoperability between 3D urban models. J. Inform. Technol. Constr. 2010, 15, 169–184. [Google Scholar]
- El-mekawy, M.; Östman, A. Semantic Mapping: An Ontology Engineering Method for Integrating Building Models in IFC and CityGML. In Proceedings of the 3rd ISDE Digital Earth Summit, Nessebar, Bulgaria, 12–14 June 2010.
- Abanda, H.; Ng’ombe, A.; Tah, J.H.M.M.; Keivani, R. An ontology-driven decision support system for land delivery in Zambia. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 10896–10905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepczyk, C.A.; Lortie, C.J.; Anderson, L.J. An ontology for landscapes. Ecol. Complex. 2008, 5, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belhadef, H.; Kholladi, M.K. Urban ontology-based geographical information system. J. Theor. Appl. Inform. Technol. 2009, 9, 139–154. [Google Scholar]
- Schevers, H.A.J.; Trinidad, G.; Drogemuller, R.M. Towards integrated assessments for urban development. ITcon 2006, 11, 225–236. [Google Scholar]
- Kohli, D.; Sliuzas, R.; Kerle, N.; Stein, A. An ontology of slums for image- based classification. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2012, 36, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beetz, J.; van Leeuwen, J.; de Vries, B. Towards a Topological Reasoning Service for IFC-Based Building Information Models in a Semantic Web Context. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, Montréal, Canada, 14–16 June 2006.
- Montenegro, N.; Gomes, G.C.; Urbano, P.; Duarte, J.P. A land use planning ontology: LBCS. Future Internet 2012, 4, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finat, J.; Delgado, J.F.; Martinez, R.; Hurtado, A.; Fernandez, J.J.; San Jose, J.I.; Martinez, J. Constructors of geometric primitives in domain ontologies for urban environments. ITcon 2010, 15, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
- Metral, C.; Cutting-Decelle, A.-F. Ontologies for interconnecting urban models. Adv. Inform. Knowl. Process 2011, 1, 105–122. [Google Scholar]
- Noy, N.; McGuinness, D. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowl. Syst. Lab. Tech. Rep. 2001, 15, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Uschold, M.; Gruninger, M. Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 1996, 11, 93–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosch, E. Principles of Categorization. In Concepts Core Readings; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Shirky, C. Ontology is Overrated—Categories, Links, and Tags. Available online: http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html?goback=.gde_1838701_member_179729766 (accessed 31 October 2014).
- Holub, A. Why extends is evil. Available online: http://www.javaworld.com/article/2073649/core-java/why-extends-is-evil.html (accessed on 11 September 2014).
- Alghamdi, J.S. Measuring Software Coupling. In Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, Stevens Point, WI, USA, 16–19 February 2007; pp. 6–12.
- Dong, B.; Lam, K.P.; Huang, Y.C. A Comparative Study of the IFC and gbXML Informational Infrastructures for Data Exchange in Computational Design Support Environments Geometry Information. In Proceedings of the 10th International IBPSA Conference, 3–6 September 2007; pp. 1530–1537.
- Mitroff, I.I.; Mason, R.O. Structuring III-structured policy issues: Further explorations in a methodology for messy problems. Strateg. Manag. J. 1980, 1, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeldman, J.; Marcotte, E. Designing with Web Standards; Voices That Matter; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Spiteri, L. The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Inform. Technol. Libr. 2013, 26, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Ambler, S.W. Refactoring for Fitness. Available online: http://www.drdobbs.com/refactoring-for-fitness/184414821 (accessed on 31 October 2014).
- Williams, B. Father of all Data Models Data Model. Available online: http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/father_of_all_models/ (accessed on 11 September 2014).
- Andrews, T. Tony Andrews on Oracle and Databases: OTLT and EAV: The Two Big Design Mistakes All Beginners Make. Available online: http://tonyandrews.blogspot.co.uk/2004/10/otlt-and-eav-two-big-design-mistakes.html (accessed on 11 September 2014).
- Broersma, R. Richard’s Stuff: EAV—The Good and Bad. Available online: http://richardbroersma.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/eav-good-and-bad.html (accessed on 11 September 2014).
- Sterman, J. A Skeptic’s Guide to Computer Models. In Managing a Nation: The Microcomputer Software Catalogue; Barney, G.O., Kreutzer, W.B., Garrett, M.J., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Grzybek, H.; Xu, S.; Gulliver, S.; Fillingham, V. Considering the Feasibility of Semantic Model Design in the Built-Environment. Buildings 2014, 4, 849-879. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4040849
Grzybek H, Xu S, Gulliver S, Fillingham V. Considering the Feasibility of Semantic Model Design in the Built-Environment. Buildings. 2014; 4(4):849-879. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4040849
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrzybek, Hubert, Shen Xu, Stephen Gulliver, and Victoria Fillingham. 2014. "Considering the Feasibility of Semantic Model Design in the Built-Environment" Buildings 4, no. 4: 849-879. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4040849