=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2636/11paper
|storemode=property
|title=Linking BIM and GIS standard ontologies with linked data
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2636/11paper.pdf
|volume=Vol-2636
|authors=Elio Hbeich,Ana Roxin
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ldac/HbeichR20
}}
==Linking BIM and GIS standard ontologies with linked data==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2636/11paper.pdf
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
Linking BIM and GIS Standard Ontologies
with Linked Data
Elio Hbeich1, 2, and Ana Roxin2
1
Information System and Applications Division, CSTB, Sophia Antipolis 06560, France
2
Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté (UBFC) – LIB EA7534, Dijon 21000, France
elio.hbeich@cstb.fr,ana-maria.roxin@ubfc.fr
Abstract. Following the analysis of existing BIM and GIS standards, formats, differences in
the interpretations of the underlying concepts have been identified. Still, in each of the two con-
sidered domains several ontologies have been defined for these terms without seeking an align-
ment among their definitions. With this scope in mind, this article presents several mappings
expressed by means of explicit semantic links between GIS concepts (as present in the related
ontologies for the ISO 191XX standard family) and BIM concepts (as represented in the IFC
standard ISO 16739:2018). Such semantic mappings are defined in order to ensure a knowledge
continuum between both domains, thus enabling seamless reasoning in application contexts
spanning over them e.g. urban contexts.
Keywords: BIM, GIS, Semantic Web Technologies, Ontologies, ISO stan-
dards, Linked Data.
1 Introduction
Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) both address modelling of environments: traditionally GIS focus on natural en-
vironment, whereas BIM targets built environments. Developed until now indepen-
dently, both domains are addressed by different standards. Following " Building in-
formation models — Information delivery manual — Part 1: Methodology and for-
mat" (ISO 29481-1: 2016) [16], BIM is defined as a shared digital representation of
physical and functional characteristics of any built object (including buildings,
bridges, roads, etc.) which forms a reliable basis for decisions . According to "Geo-
graphic information — Reference model — Part 1: Fundamentals" (ISO 19101-
1:2014) [10], GIS is an "information system dealing with information concerning phe-
nomena associated with location relative to the Earth". Being initially conceived with
different purposes, BIM and GIS differ in granularity: while BIM handles building in-
formation with a high degree resolution, GIS handles data about natural environments
along with man-made structures with a lower level of detail. Today these frontiers
seem to vanish as decision-support systems for urban environments, public sector or
even disaster management need to combine their features and advantages to improve
quality of service. For example, to help new students arrive to their classes quickly
and efficiently we need to connect outdoor navigation (supported by GIS) and build-
Copyright © LDAC2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
146
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
ing (university) indoor navigation (supported by BIM). To guarantee information con-
tinuity that can place buildings in urban context by adding its characters, analytic ca-
pability and impact in urban environment we need to ensure seamless data interpreta-
tion between both domains. Such data interpretation is ensured by transforming data
into knowledge by means of Semantic Web approaches e.g. ontologies. Being an ex-
plicit and formal conceptualization, an ontology has the benefit of ensuring computer-
reasoning, thus interpreting data instances according to an ensemble of rules. Still, on-
tologies on their own do not resolve the interoperability issue mentioned before e.g.
the need for seamless interpretation across both domains. Following the Linked Data
principles [1], vocabulary links must be defined among terms specified in different
ontologies. While several ontologies have been defined in both domains, they have all
been specified independently from each other and nor so many links and mappings
have been defined among them. In the context of this article, we are solely aiming at
standard ontologies in BIM and GIS domains, which are the ifcOWL ontology for
IFC [22] and the ontologies defined by ISO/TC 211 for the ISO 19100 standard fam-
ily (https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies). Following a summary of technologies
and standards encompassed by BIM and GIS domains, we present existing BIM and
GIS ontologies (sections 2 and 3) along with previous mapping approaches among
these ontologies (section 4). Section 5 presents the links we identified for these on-
tologies: concepts and properties. Section 6 discusses those links and concludes the
article.
2 BIM and existing standard ontologies
2.1 Building Information Modeling (BIM)
BIM is the process of generating, storing, managing, exchanging, and sharing build-
ing information [8] in an open format, namely IFC. BIM focuses on the creation of
virtual 3D models that can be explored and modified by all the stakeholders involved
in a construction project. At the level of the ISO, it is the Technical Committee ISO/
TC 59/SC 13 "Organization and Digitization of information about buildings and civil
engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM)" that is in charge
of developing BIM-related standards. Three main ISO standards exist for BIM: (1) In-
formation Delivery Manual (IDM) (ISO 29481-1:2016) [16], (2) Model View Defini-
tion (MVD) (“Building information models — Information delivery manual — Part 3:
Model View Definition.”) (ISO 29481-3:2010) [17], and (3) Industry Foundation
Classes (IFC) (“Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for data sharing in the construction
and facility management industries”) (ISO 16739:2018) [9]. A stakeholder specifies
in natural language his requirements in the form of an IDM. This is translated into an
MVD which represents a subset of the full IFC schema corresponding exactly to the
requirements specified by the stakeholder. The IFC standard both comes with a data
schema (defined in both EXPRESS and XML) and exchange file structures (clear text
encoding of the exchange structure according to ISO 10303-21 and XML). Thus, BIM
data is exchanged among stakeholders in the form of IFC files. For example, an archi-
147
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
tect creates an architectural model exports it in IFC version and shares it with an
HVAC engineer. The HVAC engineer references the file and uses it for coordination
or energy analysis. However, the HVAC engineer cannot modify the content provided
by the architect (e.g. add a new wall): he/she needs to ask the architect to make these
changes. For augmenting the efficiency of IFC-based exchanges and workflows, an
MVD must be defined; e.g. definition of the specific IFC data schema subset pertain -
ing to a given data exchange requirement for a specific software application. MVDs
allow checking that the IFC data exchanged is conform to the exact requirements of
the workflow considered. IFC data is structured into four different layers: (1) The re-
source layer includes all individual schemas containing resource definitions, used in
BIM project (e.g. IfcAddress, IfcReference); (2) The core layer contains the most
general entity definitions as the kernel schema (e.g. IfcActor) and the core extension
schemas IfcProcessExtension (e.g. IfcEvent), IfcProductExtension (e.g. IfcBuilding),
IfcControlExtension (e.g. ifcPerformanceHistory); (3) The interoperability layer in-
cludes definitions specific to a general product, process or resource as used across
several disciplines (e.g. IfcDoor, IfcRamp, etc.); (4) The domain layer includes
schemas containing entity definitions that are specializations of products, processes or
resources specific to a certain domain (e.g. IfcHvacDomain, etc.).
2.2 Standard BIM Ontologies
When considering standard BIM ontologies, only one ontology exists namely the
ifcOWL ontology. The process generating this ontology is described in [22]. The ap-
proach of [22] implements a conversion pattern (algorithm) provided in Java and C++
to convert the considered EXPRESS schema (simple, defined, list aggregation, array
aggregation data types, etc.) into OWL (OWL class hierarchy, object properties, etc.).
The generated ifcOWL ontology is in OWL2 DL, matches the original EXPRESS
schema, and allows the conversion of IFC STEP files into equivalent RDF graphs.
Different ifcOWL versions have been generated for each version of the IFC standard
and are available online1. Several researches have tackled improving the standard if-
cOWL ontology. [7] proposes an ifcOWL ontology where EXPRESS collections (e.g.
LIST) are mapped as OWL properties, and IFC defined types are not directly con-
verted to OWL classes. [7] proposes an IfcWoD ontology that has a lower expressiv-
ity (ALUIF(D) instead of SHIQ(D) for ifcOWL). IfcWoD comes with two main advan-
tages compared to the standard ifcOWL version: (1) EXPRESS collections are
mapped as OWL properties instead of RDF or OWL Lists, and (2) IFC defined types
aren't directly converted into classes. This allows having shorter and more efficient
SPARQL queries. [4] transforms the Construction Operations Building Information
Exchange (COBie) standard into the COBieOWL ontology (in OWL Lite with an
ALCHIF(D) expressivity) and apply Linked Data principles for linking it to vocabular-
ies such as FOAF. The COBieOWL ontology is also aligned to the ifcOWL ontology
by transforming the COBie MVD into SWRL rules [6]. Federation among the Ifc-
1
https://github.com/buildingSMART/ifcOWL
148
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
WoD and the COBieOWL ontologies is implemented using the FOWLA framework
[5].
3 GIS and existing standard ontologies
3.1 Geographic Information Systems
As mentioned in the Introduction, GIS refers to "information systems dealing with
information concerning phenomena associated with location relative to the Earth"
[10]. ISO/TC 211 "Geographical Information" is the ISO technical committee in
charge of standardization in the field of digital geographic information. Its goal is to
"establish a structured set of standards for information concerning objects or phenom-
ena that are directly or indirectly associated with a location relative to the Earth" [18].
GIS represents the information system that allows handling such objects and phenom-
ena [10]. ISO/TC 211 has defined the different standards forming the ISO 19100 stan-
dard family. Conceptual modelling in the ISO 19100 series is based Model-driven Ar-
chitectures (MDA). Four levels are considered: (1) Metamodel level contains “Geo-
graphic information — Rules for application schema.” (ISO 19109:2015) [12], and
“Geographic information — Conceptual schema language” (ISO19103:2015) [19], (2)
Conceptual (Abstract) Schemas level contains “Geographic information — Spatial
schema.” (ISO 19107:2003) [11], “Geographic information — Referencing by coordi-
nates.” (ISO 19111:2007) [13], etc., (3) Conceptual (Applications) Schemas level
contains “Geographic information — Data product specifications.” (ISO 19131:2007)
[15], “Geographic information — Imagery sensor models for geopositioning” (ISO
19130:2010) [14], etc., and (4) Implementation schemas level contains the actual data
that is defined according to the standards present at the previous level.
3.2 Standard GIS Ontologies
ISO/TC 211 established a group for the maintenance of ontologies (GOM) respon-
sible to create and publish ISO/TC 211 ontologies (https://github.com/ISO-TC211/
GOM). The table below lists the standards that have associated ontology representa-
tions (as published on the TC211 website: https://def.isotc211.org/ontologies/). These
ontologies are also published on the ISO/TC211 GitHub repository: https://github.-
com/ISO-TC211/ontologies. Elements in bold in the table below are the standards
concerned by the mappings defined in this paper.
Table 1. ISO 19100 standard family ontology representation
Metamodel level
ISO
Name Description
standard
ISO Reference The ISO reference model dealing with geographic information, de-
19101 model scribed from 4 viewpoints: semantic, syntactic, service, and proced-
ural. One of the goals of this reference model is to "ensure interoper-
ability" with other domains and to ease the integration of "integrate
geographic information with other types of information and con-
149
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
versely".
Conceptual It provides rules and guidelines for the use of a conceptual schema
ISO
schema lan- language within the context of geographic information. The concep-
19103
guage tual schema language used is the Unified Modeling Language (UML).
The RulesForApplicationSchema imports UtilityClasses and Gener-
alfeatureModel ontologies from ISO 19109:2015, along with the base
Rules for ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.The GeneralFeatureModel ontology
ISO
application imports UtilityClasses ontology from ISO 19109:2015, NameTypes
19109
schema ontology from ISO 19103:2015, MetadataEntitySetInformation onto-
logy from ISO 19115:2003 along with the base ontology from ISO
19150-2:2012.
Conceptual (Abstract) Schemas level
ISO
Name Description
standard
The SpatialSchema ontology imports Geometry and Topology ontolo-
gies from ISO 19107:2003 along with the base ontology from ISO
19150-2:2012. The Topology ontology imports TopologicalComplex,
TopologicalPrimitive, and TopologyRoot ontologies from ISO
ISO Spatial
19107:2003 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
19107 schema
The Geometry ontology imports CoordinateGeometry, GeometricAg-
gregates, GeometricComplex, GeometricPrimitive, GeometryRoot on-
tologies from ISO 19107:2003 along with the base ontology from ISO
19150-2:2012
The TemporalSchema ontology imports TemporalObjects and Tem-
ISO Temporal
poralReferenceSystem ontologies from ISO 19108:2006 along with
19108 schema
the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Methodology The MethodologyForFeatureCataloguing ontology imports FeatureC-
ISO
for feature ataloguing and FeatureCatalogueRegister ontologies from ISO
19110
cataloguing 19110:2016 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
The ReferencingByCoordinates ontology imports CommonClasses,
Referencing
ISO Coordinates, CoordinateReferenceSystems, CoordinateSystems,
by coordi-
19111 Datums and CoordinateOperations ontologies from ISO 19111:2019
nates
along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Spatial refer- It establishes a general model for spatial referencing using geographic
ISO encing by ge- identifiers and defines the components of a spatial reference system. It
19112 ographic only covers the definition and recording of the referencing feature,
identifier and does not consider the forms of the relationship.
It defines the schema required for describing geographic information
ISO and services. It provides information about the identification, the ex-
Metadata
19115 tent, the quality, the spatial and temporal schema, spatial reference,
and distribution of digital geographic data.
Schema for The Coverages ontology imports CoverageCore, DiscreteCoverages,
ISO coverage ge- ThiessenPolygon, QuadrilateralGrid, HexagonalGrid, TIN, and Seg-
19123 ometry and mentedCurve ontology from ISO 19123:2005 along with the base on-
functions tology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Core profile It defines a core profile of the spatial schema detailed in ISO 19107
ISO
of the spatial that specifies, following ISO 19106, a minimal set of geometric ele-
19137
schema ments necessary for the efficient creation of application schemata.
Schema for It defines a method to describe the geometry of a feature that moves as
ISO
moving fea- a rigid body, such as feature that moves along a planned route, or mo-
19141
tures tion influenced by physical forces.
ISO Schema of The standard provides ways to specify locations along linear elements
150
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
linear refer- such as transport network links or alignments. In essence, any object
19148
encing where a location can be referenced using one measure.
It establishes principles for reporting data quality, and also defines a
ISO
Data quality set of data quality measures for use in evaluating and reporting data
19157
quality.
Conceptual (Application) Schemas level
ISO
Name Description
standard
ISO The Terminology ontology imports TermRegister ontology from ISO
Terminology
19104 19104 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Imagery
sensor mod- The ImagerySensorModelsForGeopositioningPart1_Fundamentals on-
ISO
els for tology imports SensorData ontology from ISO 19130-1:2018 along
19130
geoposition- with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
ing
The DataProductSpecification ontology imports DPS, Specification-
AdditionalInformation, SpecificationContentAndStructure, Specifica-
tionDataCaputreInformation, SpecificationDataQualityRequirement,
SpecificationDeliveryInformation, SpecificationIdentification, Spe-
cificationMaintenanceInformation, SpecificationPortrayalInformation,
SpecificationReferenceSystem, and SpecificationScopes ontolgies
Data prod-
ISO from ISO 19131:2007 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-
uct specifi-
19131 2:2012. The DPS ontotology imports SpecificationPortrayalInforma-
cations
tion, SpecificationScopes, SpecificationDataCaptureInformation, Spe-
cificationDeliveryInformation, SpecificationReferenceSystem, Spe-
cificationDataQualityRequirement, SpecificationIdentification, Spe-
cificationMaintenanceInformation, SpecificationContentAndStructure,
SpecificationAdditionalInformation ontolgies from ISO 19131:2007
along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Implementation Schemas level
ISO
Name Description
standard
It specifies the data structure and content of an interface that permits
communication between position-providing device(s) and position-us-
ISO Positioning
ing device(s) to interpret position information and determine whether
19116 services
the resulting position information meets the requirements of the inten-
ded use.
It provides an abstract model for developers of portrayal systems so
ISO that they can implement a system with the flexibility to portray geo-
Portrayal
19117 graphic data to a user community in a manner that makes sense to that
community.
It specifies the requirements for encoding rules, encoding services and
ISO XML-based encoding, for the interchange of data that conform to the
Encoding
19118 geographic information in the set of International Standards known as
the "ISO 19100 series".
The Services ontology imports ServiceMetadata, and ServiceModel
ISO
Services ontologies from ISO 19119:2005 along with the base ontology from
19119
ISO 19150-2:2012.
Feature con-
The FeatureConcepts ontology imports FeatureConceptDictionary,
ISO cept dictio-
and HierarchicalFeatureInformationRegister ontologies from ISO
19126 naries and
19126:2009 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
registers
151
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
Web map The MapServices ontology imports ExtentInformation, and Citation-
ISO
server inter- AndResponsiblePartyInformation ontologies from ISO 19115:2006
19128
face along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
Imagery,
gridded and
ISO The IGCD ontology imports IGCDFramework ontology from ISO
coverage
19129 19129:2009 along with the base ontology from ISO 19150-2:2012.
data frame-
work
Location- It defines a reference model (e.g. enterprise, information, etc.) and a
ISO based ser- conceptual framework that contains ontology, taxonomies, etc. for
19132 vices - Refer- location-based services (LBS), and describes the basic principles by
ence model which LBS applications may interoperate.
Location- It describes the data types, and operations associated with those types,
based ser- for the implementation of tracking and navigation services. It is de-
ISO
vices - signed to specify web services that can be made available to wireless
19133
Tracking and devices through web-resident proxy applications, but is not restricted
navigation to that environment.
Location-
based ser-
It specifies the data types and their associated operations for the im-
ISO vices - Multi-
plementation of multimodal location-based services for routing and
19134 modal rout-
navigation.
ing and navi-
gation
It specifies procedures to be followed in establishing, maintaining and
Procedures
ISO publishing registers of unique, unambiguous and permanent identifi-
for item reg-
19135 ers, and meanings that are assigned to items of geographic informa-
istration
tion.
Geography
It is developed within the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). GML
ISO Markup Lan-
is an XML schema for the description of application schemas as well
19136 guage
as the transport and storage of geographic information.
(GML)
It defines a core profile of the spatial schema detailed
Core profile
ISO in ISO 19107 that specifies, following ISO 19106, a minimal set of
of the spatial
19137 geometric elements necessary for the efficient creation of application
schema
schemata.
Metadata -
It provides the XML implementation schema for ISO 19115 specify-
ISO XML schema
ing the metadata record format and may be used to describe, validate,
19139 implementa-
and exchange geospatial metadata prepared in XML
tion
It is divided into two parts Classification system structure, and Land
ISO Cover Meta Language (LCML). The first part aims to develop future
Classifica-
19144 classification systems that offer more reliable collection methods. The
tion systems
second part allows different land cover classification systems to be de-
scribed based on the physiognomic aspects.
Registry of
representa- It specifies the process for establishing, maintaining and publishing
ISO
tions of geo- registers of representation of geographic point location in compliance
19145
graphic point with ISO 19135.
location
Cross-do- It establishes a methodology for cross-mapping between vocabularies
ISO
main vocabu- used by geospatial communities. Its purpose is to provide rules for en-
19146
laries suring consistency when implementing cross-mapping processes.
152
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
It defines rules and guidelines for the development of ontologies to
ISO
Ontology support geographic information over the Semantic Web. It defines the
19150
conversion of the UML standards into OWL.
Ubiquitous
This standard considers Ubiquitous Public Access to geographic in-
ISO public access
formation. It defines requirements in terms of standardization of sys-
19154 - Reference
tems and services supporting it.
model
Following the cooperation with OGC's Sensor Web Enablement
Observations
ISO (SWE) activity), this standard comprises 2 parts as derived from pre-
and measure-
19156 viously published OGC standards: Part 1 — Observation schema
ments
(OGC 07-022r1) and Part 2 – Sampling Features (OGC 07-002r3).
Calibration
and valida- It comprises 4 parts: Part 1 addresses optical sensors (published in
ISO
tion of re- 2014), Part 2 covers the domains of laser scanning e.g. LIDAR (pub-
19159
mote sensing lished in 2016), while Part 3 addresses SAR/InSAR (published in
imagery sen- 2018) and SONAR will be considered by Part 4 (to be published).
sors and data
5 parts are considered for this standard, but only Part 1 Conceptual
ISO
Addressing model has been published so far. It defines an address model along
19160
with definitions of concepts present in the model.
4 Related Work
Previous sections (2 and 3) introduced existing BIM and ISO/TC 211 ontologies.
However, there is no previous studies that tackled or created any links between them.
This section lists several approaches addressing semantic links among BIM and GIS
application. Semantic Web Technologies link BIM and GIS domains through uni/bi-
directional integration [21], [22] or unification e.g. ontology covering both domains
[3]. However, the presented approaches focus only on building models and treat spe-
cific use cases. [2] worked on automatically generating CityGML LoD3 (City Geo-
graphic Markup Language is an open standardized data model and exchange format
that stores digital 3D models of cities and landscapes. The extendible international
standard for spatial data exchange is issued by the OGC and the ISO/TC211) building
models from IFC using Semantic Web Technology by mapping different entities and
properties (e.g. IfcRoof equivalent to RoofSurface). [3] semantically integrated IFC
and CityGML by conceiving the UBM ontology (Unified Building Model). For this
authors defined semantic relationships between IFC and CityGML schemas through
transformation rules (e.g. IfcBuilding is equivalent to UBMBuilding and UBMBuild-
ing is equivalent to _AbstractBuilding). [20] introduces BIM to GIS (B2G) mapping
by applying perspective definition (B2G PD), element mapping (B2G EM) and LoD
mapping (B2G LM) mechanisms. Where B2G PD concerns data extracting depending
on the use case, B2G EM defines the object mapping mechanism in terms of BIM to
GIS transformation of model elements. B2G LM concerns LoD definition and map-
ping from BIM to GIS model. [21] integrates BIM and GIS by applying the following
steps: (1) ontology construction, (2) semantic integration through Graph Matching for
Ontologies (GMO), and finally (3) query execution. In addition, IFC ontology is
linked to other building ontologies, for example [24] presents mapping results be-
153
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
tween BOT (Building Topology Ontology) and other building ontologies such as IFC
(e.g. bot:Site owl:equivalentClass ifc:IfcSite), SAREF4BLDG (SAREF Ontology for
Building) (e.g. bot:Building owl:equivalentClass saref4bldg:Building), and BRICK
(e.g. bot:Building owl:equivalentClass brick:Building). Following our analysis, we
noticed the following limitations in existing approaches: (1) the mappings defined are
mainly among IFC and a GIS application schema (CityGML, IndoorGML, etc.) and
do not address GIS standard ontologies; (2) unification or integration approaches only
link two ontologies (e.g. CityGML and IFC) and cannot be applied to link all existing
BIM and GIS ontologies; (3) most mapping concentrate only on IfcProductExtension
and the IFC concepts in the interoperability layer. Thus in the next section we'll exam-
ine and define several semantic links among concepts from ifcOWL and standard GIS
ontologies. Our mapping concerns IFC4.1 (IFC4_ADD1 Ontology) which is the
lasted IFC ontology published by buildingSMART and ISO/TC 211 ontologies [25-
29] (ISO 19109:2015, ISO 19107:2003, ISO 19111:2019, ISO 19130:2018, ISO
19131:2017 ) published by GOM.
Figure 1: Previous mapping between BIM and GIS Ontologies
5 Ontology Mapping/ Alignment
As stated before we are aiming to map BIM/GIS through the definition of semantic
links among standard ontologies namely those defined by ISO/TC 211 and IfcOWL
4.1. As described in [23], this contribution is part of a wider approach based on a two-
axis federation e.g. vertical and horizontal federation. In our vision, horizontal federa-
tion focuses on creating semantic links between concepts and properties among both
domains, while vertical federation specifies different abstractions of the same scope
or context. Due to the limited number of pages, in this article we are only presenting
mappings among a reduced number of ontologies from all those defined by ISO/
TC211. The links provided in the following paragraphs pertain to horizontal federa-
tion and are intended to: (1) link the GIS metamodel e.g. the General Feature Model
(GFM) or ISO 19109:2015 and IFC concepts present in its core layer. (2) link GIS ab-
stract conceptual schemas (e.g. ISO 19107:2003, ISO 19111:2007) and IFC concepts
154
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
contained in the resource definition layer. (3) link GIS application schemas (e.g. ISO
19130:2010, ISO 19131:2007) and IFC concepts from the layers of domain specific
and shared elements (ISO 16739-1:2018). In addition, note that the below standards
correspond to the following name spaces:
ISO19107 = "http://def.isotc211.org/iso19107/2003/SpatialSchema#”
ISO19109 ="http://def.isotc211.org/iso19109/2015/ RulesForApplicationSchema #”
ISO 19111= "http://def.isotc211.org/iso19111/2019/CoordinateReferenceSystems#"
ISO 19130= "http://def.isotc211.org/iso19130/2018/SensorData#"
ISO 19131= " http://def.isotc211.org/iso19131/2007/DPS#"
IFC4.1 = "http://ifcowl.openbimstandards.org/IFC4_ADD1#"
5.1 Alignment between abstract schema and resource layer
In this section we are mapping GIS abstraction schema (ISO 19111:2007, ISO
19107:2003) and IFC resource definition layer.
Table 2. IFC4.1 and ISO 19111:2007 [13] concepts and properties
IFC resource ISO
Description Description
layer 19111
It is the non-repeating se-
quence of coordinate system
Coordi- axes that span a given coordi-
IfcCoordi- It is a definition of a coordi-
nateSys- nate space. A CS is derived
nateRefer- nate reference system using
tem from a set of mathematical
enceSystem qualified identifiers only.
(CS) rules for specifying how coor-
dinates in each space are to be
assigned to points.
It is a coordinate reference
It is a derived coordinate ref-
system of the map to which
erence system which has a ge-
the map translation of the lo-
Project- odetic coordinate reference
IfcProjectCRS cal engineering coordinate
edCRS system as its base CRS and is
system of the construction or
converted using a map projec-
facility engineering project re-
tion.
lates.
Provides location and orienta-
tions to place items in a three-
IfcAxis2Place- dimensional space. The at- Coordi- Defines coordinate system
ment tribute Axis defines the Z di- nateSys axis (axisAbbre, axeDirection,
3D rection, RefDirection the X di- temAxis axe UnitID).
rection, the Y direction is de-
rived.
Table 3. Mapping IFC4_ADD1 and ISO 19111:2019 [27]
IFC4_ADD1.owl Relation ISO 19111.owl
IFC4.1:IfcProjectedCRS owl:equivalentClass ISO19111:ProjectedCRS
IFC4.1:IfcCoordinateRef-
owl:equivalentClass ISO19111:CoordinateSystem
erenceSystem
155
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
IFC4.1:refDirection_If- ISO1911:CoordinateSystemAx-
owl:equivalentProperty
cAxis2Placement3D is.axisDirection
Table 4. IFC4.1 and ISO 19107:2003 [11] concepts and properties
IFC
ISO
resource Description Description
19107
layer
Directed topological object that represents
Defines 2 vertices being TP_
IfcEdge an association between an edge and one of
connected topologically. Edge
its orientations
It is the super type of all
boundary conditions that
can be applied to structural The boundary operation for GM_Complex
IfcBound- connection definitions, ei- GM_ objects shall return a GM_Com-
ary ther directly for the con- Boun plexBoundary, which is a collection of
Condition nection (e.g. the joint) or dary primitives and a GM_Complex of dimen-
for the relation between a sion 1 less than the original object
structural member and the
connection
Defines 2 vertices being
connected topologically GM_Curve represent sections of curvilin-
IfcEdge GM_
including the geometric ear geometry, and therefore share a num-
Curve Curve
representation of the con- ber of operation signatures.
nection
Table 5. Mapping IFC4_ADD1 and ISO 19107:2003 [26]
IFC4_ADD1.owl Relation ISO 19107.owl
IFC4.1:EdgeCurve owl:equivalentClass ISO19107:GM_Curve
IFC4.1:Edge owl:equivalentClass ISO19107:TP_Edge
IFC4.1:IfcBoundaryCondition owl:equivalentClass ISO19107:GM_Boundary
5.2 Alignment between application schema and shared element layer
In this section we are mapping GIS application schema (ISO 19131:2007, ISO
19130:2010) and IFC shared element layer.
Table 6. IFC4.1 and ISO 19130:2010 [14] concepts and properties
IFC shared ele-
ment layer Description ISO 19130 Description
schemas
It is the time
It is the value of the duration of periods.
value of the
IfcTimeMeasure Measured in seconds (s) or days (d) or dateTime
taken measure-
other units of time.
ment
IfcDimension- It defines the dimensionality of the co- num- Number of di-
Count ordinate space. It is restricted to have berofDi- mension
the dimensionality of either 1, 2, or 3 mensions
156
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
for the purpose of this specification
Table 7. Mapping IFC4_ADD1 and ISO 19130:2018 [28]
IFC4_ADD1.owl Relation ISO 19130.owl
ISO19130: SD_Dynamics.
IFC4.1: IfcTimeMeasure owl:equivalentProperty
dateTime
ISO19130:SD_DetectorArray.
IFC4.1: IfcDimensionCount owl:equivalentProperty
numberOfDimensions
Table 8. IFC4.1 and ISO 19131:2007 [15] concepts and properties
IFC shared Description ISO Description
element layer 19131
schemas
IfcApplication It holds the information DPS_ It defines the conceptual
about an IFC compliant ApplicationSchemas schema for data required
application developed by by one or more applica-
an application developer. tions
IfcExtended- It is an abstract super Ex_Extent It presents the descrip-
Properties type of all extensible tion of spatial and tem-
property collections that poral extent covered by
are applicable to certain data product
characterized entities.
Table 9. Mapping IFC4_ADD1 and ISO 19131:2007 [29]
IFC4_ADD1.owl Relation ISO 19131.owl
ISO19131: DPS_Application-
IFC4.1:IfcApplication owl:equivalentClass
Schemas
IFC4.1:IfcExtendedProperties owl:equivalentClass ISO19131:Ex_Extent
5.3 Alignment between Metamodel and core layer
In this section we are mapping abstract GIS schema (ISO 19109:2015) and IFC
core layer.
Table 10. IFC4.1 and ISO 19109:2015 [12] concepts and properties
IFC core Description ISO Description
layer 19109
IfcRoot IfcRoot is the most abstract and root Any It represents the set of all
class for all entity definitions that roots Feature classes which are feature
in the kernel or in subsequent layers of types
the IFC specification. It is therefore the
common super type of all IFC entities,
beside those defined in an IFC resource
schema
IfcProduct Further specializes the concepts of a At- It recognizes all kinds of at-
Extension (physical) product, i.e. a component tribute tributes: temporal, spatial
likely to have a shape and a placement Type geometry, spatial topology,
within the project context data quality, generic meta-
data, and location.
157
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
Table 11. Mapping IFC4_ADD1 and ISO 19109:2015 [25]
IFC4_ADD1.owl Relation ISO 19109.owl
IFC4.1:IfcRoot owl:equivalentClass ISO19109:AnyFeature
IFC4.1:IfcProductExtension owl:equivalentClass ISO19109:AttributeType
6 Conclusion and Future Work
The above mappings rely on concepts' and properties' definitions to instantiate
equivalent relationships. However, those relations are not enough to achieve full se-
mantic interoperability. In order to push our contribution further, we need to confront
conceptual and semiotic heterogeneities which address differences in modelling, cov-
erage and granularity representation between ontologies. We also need to implement
structural ontology matching techniques that could enable a more robust mapping be-
tween BIM and GIS domains. Mapping BIM and GIS conceptual schema via ontolo-
gies will enable us to create data continuity between both domains, plug BIM model
into any GIS application (e.g. CityGML, IndoorGML, LandInfra, etc.). Furthermore,
the mapping is not limited to a specific use case and both domains must remain inde-
pendent from each other because no meta-model is conceived or taken as reference.
The mapping between BIM and GIS enables horizontal federation in our approach
[23]. However, our approach also comprises vertical federation and for reaching it,
the next elements must be considered: (1) Definition of mediator ontologies which es-
tablish terminological equivalences among schemas. (2) Definition of complex se-
mantic mappings: which require exchanges with business experts. (3) Implementation
of a granular approach: the concept of granularity, seems intuitive and easy to imple-
ment, still the associated abstraction levels and perspectives must be specified [23].
References
1] Tim Berners-Lee on Linked Data | Open Data, http://data.agaric.com/tim-berners-lee-linked-data,
last accessed 2020/05/20.
[2]Donkers, S. Automatic generation of CityGML LoD3 building models from IFC models. (2013)
[3] El-Mekawy, M., & Östman, A. Semantic Mapping: an Ontology Engineering Method for Inte-
grating Building Models in IFC and CityGML. In the 3rd ISDE Digital EART Summit, Nesse-
bar, Bulgaria (2010).
[4] Farias, T. M., Roxin, A., & Nicolle, C. COBieOWL, an OWL ontology based on COBie stan-
dard. In Proceedings of On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2015 Conferences,
Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, ODBASE, and C&TC 2015, Rhodes, Greece.
(2015).
[5] Farias, T. M., Roxin, A., & Nicolle, C. FOWLA, A Federated Architecture for Ontologies. In-
ternational Web Rule Symposium (RuleML 2015), Berlin, Germany. pp.97-111. (2015).
[6] Farias, T. M., Roxin, A., & Nicolle, C. A Federated Approach for Interoperating AEC/FM On-
tologies. LDAC2016-4th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Work-shop, Madrid
Spain. (2016).
158
Proceedings of the 8th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop - LDAC2020
[7] Farias, T. M., Roxin, A.-M., & Nicolle, C. IfcWoD, Semantically Adapting IFC Model Rela-
tions into OWL Properties. In proceedings of the 32nd CIB W78 Conference on Information
Technology in Construction, Eindhoven, Netherlands. (2015)
[8] Grilo, A. & Jardim-Goncalves, R. Value Proposition on Interoperability of BIM and Collabora-
tive Working Environments. Automation in Construction, 19, 522-530. (2010).X[9] ISO
16739:2018 Industry Foundation (IFC) for data sharing in the construction and facilities man-
agement.
[10] ISO 19101-1:2014 Geographic information — Reference model — Part 1: Fundamentals
[11] ISO 19107:2003 Geographic information — Spatial schema.
[12] ISO 19109:2015 Geographic information — Rules for application schema.
[13] ISO 19111:2007 Geographic information — Spatial referencing by coordinates.
[14] ISO 19130:2010 Geographic information — Imagery sensor models for geopositioning.
[15] ISO 19131:2007 Geographic information — Data product specifications.
[16] ISO 29481-1:2016 Building information models—Information delivery manual—Part 1:
Methodology and format.
[17] ISO 29481-3:2010 Building information models—Information delivery manual—Part 3: Model
View Definition.
[18] ISO/TC 211—Geographic information/ Geomatics., https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/
sites/isoorg/contents/data/committee/05/49/54904.html, last accessed 2020/05/21
[19] ISO 19103:2015 Geographic information- Conceptual schema model
[20] Kang, T. Development of a Conceptual Mapping Standard to Link Building and Geospatial In-
formation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. (2018).
[21] Karan, E. P., Irizarry, J., & Haymaker, J. BIM and GIS Integration and Interoperability Based
on Semantic Web Technology. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 30(3), (2016).
[22] Pauwels, P., & Terkaj, W. (2016). EXPRESS to OWL for construction industry: Towards a rec-
ommendable and usable ifcOWL ontology. Automation in Construction, 63, 100–133. (2016).
[23] Roxin. A, & Hbeich. E. Semantic interoperability between BIM and GIS – review of existing
standards and depiction of a novel approach. 36th CIB W78 – Information Technology for
Construction, Newcastle, United Kingdom. (2019).
[24] Schneider, G. F. Towards Aligning Domain Ontologies with the Building Topology Ontology.
10. (2017)
[25] ISO-TC211/Ontologies, https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies/blob/master/iso19109/2015/
RulesForApplicationSchema.rdf, last accessed 2020/05/20.
[26] ISO-TC211/Ontologies, https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies/blob/master/iso19107/2003/
SpatialSchema.rdf, last accessed 2020/05/20.
[27] ISO-TC211/Ontologies, https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies/blob/master/iso19111/2019/
CoordinateReferenceSystems.rdf, last accessed 2020/05/20.
[28] ISO-TC211/Ontologies, https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies/blob/master/iso19130/-
1/2018/ImagerySensorModelsForGeopositioning-Part1_Fundamentals.rdf, ast accessed
2020/05/20.
[29] ISO-TC211/Ontologies, https://github.com/ISO-TC211/ontologies/blob/master/iso19131/2007/
DPS.rdf, last accessed 2020/05/20.
159