=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3213/paper02
|storemode=property
|title=Ontologies and JSON-LD at TenneT: The Use of Linked Data on EU-303 Projects
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3213/paper02.pdf
|volume=Vol-3213
|authors=Sander Stolk,Wouter Lubbers,Freek Braakman,Sander Weitkamp
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ldac/StolkLBW22
}}
==Ontologies and JSON-LD at TenneT: The Use of Linked Data on EU-303 Projects==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3213/paper02.pdf
Ontologies and JSON-LD at TenneT: The use of linked
data on EU-303 projects
Sander Stolk1,2 , Wouter Lubbers1,2 , Freek Braakman1 and Sander Weitkamp1
1
TenneT TSO, Utrechtseweg 310, 6800 AS Arnhem, the Netherlands; https:// www.tennet.eu
2
Semmtech, Scorpius 124, 2132 LR Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; https:// semmtech.com
Abstract
The demand and supply of electricity adheres to more complex patterns than before. TenneT, an
organization which transports electricity in the Netherlands and Germany, will see work done on over
360 high voltage substations in the Netherlands over the next 10 year. For these projects, known as EU-303
projects, TenneT has opted to follow recent standards and employ digitalisation in project management
and information exchange. Linked data, including the use of ontologies and JSON-LD, forms an essential
part of this digitalisation strategy in facilitating efficiency and accuracy in the communication between
TenneT and contractors. This paper discusses the implementation and use of these technologies on the
EU-303 projects. The first half year of the programme has been promising, indicating significant time
gains and, owing to the JSON-LD format, the ability of organizations to adopt the linked data paradigm
even when unfamiliar with its intricacies.
Keywords
Asset management, Linked data, Exchange information requirements, Knowledge graph, Ontology,
JSON-LD, High voltage
1. Introduction
The demand and supply of electricity adheres to more complex patterns than before. This
development confronts TenneT, an organization which transports electricity in the Netherlands
and Germany, with significant challenges. One of these challenges is the transition from
traditional energy sources to durable ones. Another is that there are larger suppliers and
consumers of energy in the energy network. Energy supply is also moving into relatively
sparsely populated areas with limited network capacity. Additionally, there is a need for
renovation of existing, aging infrastructure. Challenges such as these have, consequentially,
increased the complexity of the efforts at TenneT in guaranteeing adequate supply of electricity.
In the Netherlands alone, 360 high voltage substations owned by TenneT have to be renovated,
modified, expanded and/or renewed over the next 10 years. In effect, this demands a doubling
of work efforts on a yearly basis compared to previous years. The existing ways of working
on projects (i.e., processes and procedures) have not been designed for such volumes of work,
which makes it essential for TenneT to cooperate with the market in facing the challenges.
LDAC 2022: 10th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop, May 29, 2022, Hersonissos, Greece
$ s.stolk@semmtech.com (S. Stolk); w.lubbers@semmtech.com (W. Lubbers); Freek.Braakman@tennet.eu
(F. Braakman); Sander.Weitkamp@tennet.eu (S. Weitkamp)
0000-0003-2254-6613 (S. Stolk)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
20
The collaboration between TenneT and its contractors has been anchored in the framework
agreement for the European tender on these substations, titled ‘EU-303 Substations’,1 which,
amongst others, details the type of activities required and the manner in which contracted parties
are asked to deliver their work — including the form in which information is to be exchanged.
This framework will form the basis of all projects on substations for the next 10 years. For these
EU-303 projects, TenneT has opted to follow recent standards and, rather than continuing a
mostly document-based exchange of information that requires TenneT and its contractors to
process data manually, employ digitalisation in project management and information exchange.
Linked data, including the use of ontologies and JSON-LD, forms an essential part of this
digitalisation strategy in facilitating efficiency and accuracy in the communication between
TenneT and contractors in a software-neutral manner. This paper discusses the implementation
and use of these technologies on the EU-303 projects.
The remainder of this paper is laid out as follows. Section 2 discusses related work. Section 3
explains the use of linked data on EU-303 projects, including that of ontologies (3.1), Exchange
Information Requirements (3.2), and JSON-LD (3.3). Section 4 touches upon the uptake and
impact of the approach, followed by the conclusion in Section 5.
2. Related work
The use of linked data and Semantic Web technology in information exchange of information has,
over the last decade, seen a major uptake in a number of European countries. The Netherlands,
for instance, has widely adopted these technologies in sectors such as infrastructure and
construction. In these sectors, information on assets owned by provinces, municipalities, and
national organizations (e.g., Rijkswaterstaat and Schiphol) are not uncommonly exchanged
using a linked data format that incorporates terminology captured in an ontology [1, 2, 3, 4].
Indeed, this approach has been standardized in a national technical agreement (NTA 8035) and
a normative standard (NEN 2660) and expected to develop subsequently at an international
level through CEN/ISO [5, 6]. In other sectors, too, knowledge graph technology has been
adopted for sharing and exchange of information. At the company Bosch, for instance, virtual
knowledge graphs have been employed to integrate manufacturing data [7], and at the European
Commission, linked data has been used to publish open government data [8]. Use of these
technologies facilitates software-neutral communication according to clearly specified semantics,
which is considered an essential pillar on the EU-303 projects for collaboration with multiple
contractors.
An article by Pieter Pauwels et al. provides a comprehensive literature review on use cases
for Semantic Web technology in the domains of architecture, engineering, and construction
[9]. Scholarly work on this topic, as the article indicates, focus on three main aims for the use
of this technology: (1) interoperability, (2) linking across domains, and (3) logical inference
and proofs. Indeed, all three aims are in line with those at TenneT. Interoperability is sought
in order to enable vendor-neutral model exchange between TenneT and its contractors (cf.
[10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]), minimizing document-based information exchange, and to combine
different information representations (both Systems Engineering and BIM on the EU-303 projects,
1
See https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:334228-2019:TEXT:EN:HTML.
21
cf. [13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. With respect to linking across domains, the EU-303 projects opt for
ontology-based information management and sharing (cf. [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]). Lastly, the
model coherency and consistency of the ontology, and the completeness of data deliveries on the
projects themselves, are being verified using Semantic Web technology (cf. [17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]).
The current paper differs from the aforementioned ones in that it details a case in which the
involved parties can opt to utilize either Turtle or, instead, the more recent JSON-LD format
[32] to share data on assets — a choice aimed at lowering the threshold for contractors to share
data in a digital, linked data form. Additionally, this paper offers preliminary insights into the
reception of the described approach amongst contractors operating in the energy sector.
3. Approach
The approach on EU-303 projects for exchanging asset data is informed by national and
international open standards. The national technical agreement NTA 8035 describes the
practice of capturing asset terminology in ontologies and how these ontologies can be applied
in capturing alphanumeric information on asset data proper [5]. Thus, types of assets and their
characteristics are identifiable and can be referred to and shared in both a human-readable and
machine-interpretable manner based on the linked data underlying the knowledge graph.
For the exchange of asset data proper, ISO 19650 dictates the use of Exchange Information
Requirements (EIR) to specify which data is requested and in what form it is to be exchanged
[33]. The use of linked data as exchange form can be part of an EIR and, in cases where an
ontology provides the asset terminology required, facilitates the interpretation of the asset
data (cf. NTA 8035). This approach has been adopted on EU-303 projects at TenneT in the
digitalisation of its information exchange.
3.1. Ontology
TenneT employs an ontology on EU-303 projects in order to share asset terminology that is
recognised and used by TenneT and its contractors (e.g., for projects where a contractor has been
asked to extend the capacity of a power station owned by TenneT). The terminology captured in
the ontology contains types of assets (e.g., a powerline, a transformer) and characteristics (e.g.,
diameter, capacity) that are defined in standards specific to the sector and have a proven record
in use at TenneT in projects and requirements on assets, albeit mainly in written documentation
rather than digitised asset data. Terminology is incorporated in an ontology only when relevant
for use on EU-303 projects, which hinges on the occurrence of terms in use cases that are distilled
and have to be covered in exchange of digital information and/or project requirements. These
terms are then captured, managed, and published using software developed for this purpose.
The purpose of this methodology is to focus efforts on the most relevant use cases only. If other
types of projects are to adopt the same approach at a later stage, the terms can be expanded to
cover the corresponding needs. Owing to the software-neutral form in which the ontology is
published, it is possible to manage the knowledge within in a variety of applications. For the
EU-303 projects, TenneT has opted to utilize the Laces software suite, while leaving its partners
free to use their own tooling. The Laces software suite allows domain experts — including
22
those without prior experience with linked data technology — to define their terminology and
subsequently publish it as linked data.2
Next to terminology for physical objects (assets), the TenneT EU-303 ontology focuses on
activities, requirements and documents. Types of activities are defined to standardize project
management (e.g., communication on risks) or construction activities (e.g., leveling ground).
Standardized requirements are linked to both asset and activity types, to facilitate all parties
to find the appropriate requirements more easily. Finally, document types are captured based
on the IEC 61355-1 in order to formalize their definitions and to assign metadata to individual
documents in a more structured manner [34].
Figure 1: Main components of the TenneT ontology
The use of linked data and Semantic Web technology in sharing an ontology offers the
means to describe the asset terminology in an ontological manner and ensures individual terms
are identified by means of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) once published. Such URIs
allow one to reference a term unambiguously and employ it in data exchanges. Both TenneT
and contractors on EU-303 projects can access the relevant ontology in a machine-readable
and human-readable form. Automated access to the ontology for direct use in applications is
provided through SPARQL endpoints, which allow queries to be executed using a standardized
REST API (e.g., requesting the parts out of which a certain asset type, such as a transformer
station, typically consists) [35, 36]. Parties involved can use these means to incorporate the
ontology terminology and URIs in their project environment. In fact, the human-readable form
of the ontology is dynamically generated using the same SPARQL endpoint. A web application
acts as viewer and provides documentation on each term, its characteristics, and its relation to
other terms.
3.2. Exchange information requirements
Exchange Information Requirements (EIR) specify the form in which data is to be exchanged
— in this case between client and contractor when working with digital asset data. Figure 2
2
https://laceshub.com/
23
provides a schematic overview of such data exchange between TenneT and its partners. Both
parties can connect to the endpoint of the EU-303 ontology in order to use the same shared
terminology. Moreover, both are able to work with the tools they prefer, as long as they exchange
information according to the EIR specification. The EIR in use on EU-303 projects distinguishes
between various kinds of project data conform ISO 19650: alphanumeric information, geometric
information, and documentation [33]. Each of these has its own characteristics and a range of
suitable formats in which they could be captured.
Figure 2: The TenneT architecture for data exchange
Alphanumeric information is to be captured in the form of linked data. This information must
conform to the structure defined by the TenneT EU-303 ontology, to ensure that both TenneT
and the contractor are able to interpret the data in the same, unambiguous way. That means
that project information should be classified to the ontology first of all (e.g., ’this transformer
in the substation design’ is of the ontological type ’transformer’). Contractors can also aid
the further development of the ontology by indicating more specific types that ought to be
incorporated in the ontology, too. There always ought to be a generic type in the taxonomy to
which information can be classified, however. The second main requirement is that information
is interrelated using the predefined relations from the ontology, which are based on the NTA
8035 where possible (e.g., ’relay A is part of transformer X’ or ’transformer X should comply
with requirement 01).
TenneT prescribes two serializations which can be used to capture alphanumeric information:
the commonly used Turtle format and the more recent JSON-LD format. The aim with the latter
as one of the options is to lower the threshold of applying linked data. This will be covered in
more detail in the next section (3.3). Finally, the Unique Resource Identifiers (URIs) of all project
24
information should follow a standardized structure, independent of the party that coined them.
This practice will allow for an asset register to be maintained by TenneT.
Geometric information should also be shared according to open standards in order not to
limit any party to the use of specific software. For this reason, the IFC exchange format has
been adopted by TenneT for the exchange of 3D models, following the ISO 10303-21 STEP file
standard [37]. Besides the use of an open standard, the most important requirement on the
geometric information is that it is related to the alphanumeric information. To this end, all
model elements should be classified to the OTL and contain the same URIs as their counterparts
in the alphanumeric information. This practice facilitates end users in quickly identifying
elements and combining information from the two sources, without any complex logic.
The third information type, documentation, refers to all files that are not expressed as
alphanumeric or geometric data. This includes a wide variety of document types, including
pictures, 2D drawings, and manuals. The alphanumeric information should contain a reference
to each document by means of a unique identifier. The same identifier should be used as the
document name. This requirement ensures that documents are linked to their context (i.e., there
is a link to each asset or activity for which the document is relevant; see Figure 1).
All three information types described above are bundled in a single information container.
This container takes the form of a zip-archive containing three folders: alphanumeric, geometric
and documentation. As the data inside is already coherent, the purpose of the container is to
bundle the information in a single file that is straightforward to exchange. The approach is
inspired by the ISO 21597 standard, also known as ICDD, which was still a draft at the start of
the EU-303 projects. An adoption of the full standard may be explored in the future.
3.3. JSON-LD
The EIR allows alphanumeric information to be captured in either Turtle or the JSON-LD format.
Turtle is an established format of linked data in the sector (e.g., see NTA 8035, which contains
examples in this format). Contractors that have worked with linked data in earlier projects are
therefore not unlikely to have developed and invested in software solutions that incorporate
this format for exchanging information. For organizations new to using linked data, however,
the Semantic Web standards and the Turtle format are often perceived as a high barrier for
capturing and working with RDF [32, 38]. Employing JSON-LD, as alternative to Turtle, in the
EIR of TenneT EU-303 projects is meant to offer organizations benefits from this format that
can express the same data. JSON-LD, according to its official specification, was designed with
simplicity in mind [32]. Indeed, as JSON-LD builds on the JSON format, popular amongst Web
developers, expectations were that organizations would opt for adopting this format over Turtle
for their first foray in using linked data.
In order to allow parties to adopt JSON-LD for exchanging information with TenneT on
EU-303 projects, the first step was to make the terminology in the ontology used on these
projects available as a JSON-LD context. The first implementation of creating this context, in
which URIs from the ontology are given a shorthand phrase for use in JSON-LD, employed an
automated method that uses SPARQL queries on the endpoint of the ontology in order to
retrieve all object types, properties, and so on, and assign their URIs a shorthand phrase based
on their (human-readable) labels. Thus, “Transformer” could be used in a JSON-LD file to mean
25
“http://data.tennet.eu/def/aa17cb97-1de1-37cd-b0b4-8e09d6080908”. The resulting use for
specific asset data for JSON-LD, as can be seen in Listing 1, may be considered less opaque than
using their equivalent URIs in the Turtle format, shown in Listing 2.
{
"@context": "https://.../jsonld/otl-v1.jsonld",
"@graph": {
"content": {
"physical object": [
{
"id": "http://data.tennet.eu/id/b8da5570-...",
"type": "Distribution system for 380 kV ≤ Un ≤ 420 kV",
"name": "Distribution system 380 kV veld 12",
"code": "T001=ACA112",
"price": { "value": "1000", "unit": "euro", "type": "quantity value" },
"restore time": { "value": "240", "unit": "minute", "type": "quantity value" },
"CBS code": "K501034",
"material": "Metal",
"planned start date": "2021-01-01",
"planned end date": "2021-01-01",
"VNB status": true,
"ground": "http://data.tennet.eu/def/4522a624-...",
"has part": [ "http://data.tennet.eu/id/3028637c-..." ]
}
]
}
}
}
Listing 1: Example of information exchanged in JSON-LD on a specific physical object
26
@prefix rdf: .
@prefix xsd: .
@prefix skos: .
@prefix schema: .
@prefix base: .
@prefix tennet: .
@prefix id: .
id:b8da5570-..
a tennet:0dfed401-212c-4a3f-a33d-2b41ee347a23 ;
skos:prefLabel "Distribution system 380 kV veld 12" ;
skos:notation "T001=ACA112" ;
tennet:1abf5e56-ad7c-4d8b-8887-4c4e618dc0af [
a base:QuantityValue ;
rdf:value "1000" ;
schema:unitText "euro" .
] ;
tennet:2ee76514-38fe-4e41-a5be-0394d46d51bd [
a base:QuantityValue ;
rdf:value "240" ;
schema:unitText "minute" .
] ;
tennet:ea172b25-18d5-450a-97bf-2510be29adf2 "K501034" ;
tennet:6113ac03-e674-499c-be06-0d110162d6a3 "Metal" ;
tennet:5eecdcd1-f355-4e1d-90e9-f50f69c9feea "2021-01-01"^^xsd:date ;
tennet:70d4b524-fa73-4268-82fc-ac12ef9c4a94 "2021-01-01"^^xsd:date ;
tennet:e0433461-06c2-468a-88ff-fc30d90342af "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
tennet:abe0a2a7-7957-4719-baa9-ef7795e45859 tennet:8b9a1b1d-ff7d-4148-bee2-3691db1bd6a6 ;
base:hasPart id:0dc53424-4bb0-431b-b82b-691661e52cb2 ;
.
Listing 2: Example of information exchanged in Turtle on a specific physical object
In implementing JSON-LD for data exchange on EU-303 projects, the goal of the chosen data
structure was to minimize complexity and maximize transparency for developers. By using
the @graph keyword, multiple resources can be described in a single JSON-LD file. A so-called
type map is used in order to provide clarity on the type of objects. Rather than interspersing
objects of all types in the JSON-LD format, they are grouped on the basis of the top element
identified by the technical agreement NTA 8035. Data on all physical objects of a project are
thus subsumed under the key “physical object”; all activities under the key “activity”; and so on.
The identification of each object is done through the id key instead of through JSON-LD id
maps. This approach, effectively, captures URIs in the JSON-LD format as data attributes of an
object rather than as their indexing mechanism. The resulting structure is expected to increase
transparency for parties who do not have substantial experience with linked data and URIs.
4. Uptake and impact
Although steps towards digitalisation were desired by TenneT on EU-303 projects, such steps
were not of primary concern in offering work to contractors. Work done on high voltage
substations needs to be satisfactory and safe, first and foremost. Potential contractors were
therefore asked, in a tender, to provide evidence of their ability to perform in such a manner.
If, additionally, they demonstrated a capability in delivering their information digitally (i.e.,
27
conform the EIR), they would obtain bonus points. Thus, digitalisation has been an optional
component in working with TenneT on EU-303 projects so far; one that allowed potential
contractors to distinguish themselves beyond their main activities. However, digitalisation will
become mandatory in the future.
The tender resulted in a selection of nine contractors with which TenneT will collaborate
on EU-303 projects for the next ten years.3 The majority of these contractors (seven) showed
that they can offer their information in a digital manner; their bids included example hand
overs of information that demonstrated that all EIR criteria — including exchange using linked
data principles — could be fulfilled by these contractors. In fact, there were indications that
many of these organisations would be investing in digitalisation over the next few years or
already had, e.g., in their software landscape, available expertise, and possible collaborations
with TenneT on this front. This positive stance towards digitalisation offered TenneT insight
into the current situation as to whether such ambitions are realistic. Over the next ten years,
then, TenneT intends to exchange data on their EU-303 projects using linked data — some
projects will exchange alphanumeric information in the Turtle format, others in JSON-LD. In
fact, two contractors used the Turtle serialization to exchange alphanumeric information; five
chose to adopt the JSON-LD format instead and can be said to use linked data without requiring
intricate knowledge of the technology.
Evaluating the methodology outlined here on projects will be an ongoing process over the
next ten years. We intend to report our findings every few years, charting the change in duration
of project activities, perceived quality of outcomes, and the investment required in adopting
and/or learning the new methodology. Here, we present preliminary results of the first half year
of its implementation, in which TenneT and contractors have set up a number of projects and
had experience with the exchange of information on requirements surrounding projects (on the
objects and on the activities to be performed) specifically. The indications are that the approach
saves contractors a significant amount of time on requirement management in comparison to
previous approaches for communication with TenneT. Instead of having to scrutinize all TenneT
standards in order to find the relevant requirements for the project at hand, contractors can
access the ontology and find relevant requirements linked to types of objects and activities.
According to contractor SPIE, this linked (or "cleaned") set of requirements allows contractors to
save a considerable amount of time on a project for TenneT: three to four weeks. Although too
early to extrapolate these figures for the 360 and more substations that will have work done in
the next ten years, the time reduction on this aspect is significant and much needed to manage
the demand and supply of electricity. Moreover, EU-303 project management staff at TenneT
indicate that the digital data exchange on projects ensures that far less information has to be
entered into their systems manually. The exchange accelerates the process of verification and
validation of requirements being met on projects, too, since the EIR facilitates overviews of all
requirements relevant for a given project alongside whether these have been assessed and taken
into account by the contractor or are absent from their project data. Linked data thus enables
more efficient and accurate requirements management in the initial phase of a project and is
designed to enable an audit trail throughout subsequent phases, too (e.g., design, maintenance).
3
See https://www.tennet.eu/nl/tinyurl-storage/nieuws/tennet-presenteert-negen-partners-voor-uitbreiding-
en-vernieuwing-van-360-hoogspanningsstations/ (in Dutch).
28
5. Conclusion and future work
The renewal and expansion of Dutch high voltage substations owned by TenneT involves
a substantial increase in work load compared to previous years. This increase necessitates
improvements in methods and processes used on projects. The digitalisation efforts on EU-
303 projects at TenneT, which resulted in Exchange Information Requirements that employ
linked data, are part of these improvements in order to facilitate efficiency and accuracy in data
exchange. A number of organizations have demonstrated their willingness and capabilities to
adopt the data exchange, leading to a selection of contractors with which TenneT will adjust,
renew, or expand the 360 existing high voltage substations. Lessons learned on the EU-303
projects will be valuable for future efforts, including projects in Germany and projects that
deal with subjects other than high voltage substations (e.g., EU-300 Engineering & Spatial
Services, EU-301 Lines, EU-302 Cables). There, too, improvements in work methodology and
data exchange are desired in order to cope with the increase in work load compared to previous
years. The first half year of the programme has been promising, indicating significant time
gains and, owing to the JSON-LD format, the ability of organizations to adopt the linked data
paradigm even when unfamiliar with its intricacies. In the next ten years, further evaluation
will take place of these changes towards digitalisation — changes that are aimed at greater
collaboration, empowering and energizing those involved in supplying electricity.
References
[1] Rijkswaterstaat OTL, 2016. URL: https://otl.rws.nl.
[2] IMBOR OTL, 2022. URL: https://www.crow.nl/thema-s/management-openbare-ruimte/
imbor/imbor-linkeddata.
[3] Waternet OTL, 2020. URL: https://otl.waternet.nl.
[4] Schiphol Smart Building 2030, 2020. URL: https://www.schiphol.nl/en/download/b2b/
1603709743/2kLIpQv5J5hsdHrh4faNY9.pdf.
[5] NTA 8035: Semantic modeling of information in the built environment, 2020. URL: https:
//www.nen.nl/nta-8035-2020-nl-266070.
[6] NEN 2660-2: Rules for information modelling of the built environment, 2021. URL: https:
//www.nen.nl/nen-2660-2-2021-ontw-nl-279908.
[7] E. G. Kalaycı, I. Grangel González, F. Lösch, G. Xiao, A. ul Mehdi, E. Kharlamov,
D. Calvanese, Semantic integration of bosch manufacturing data using virtual knowledge
graphs, in: J. Z. Pan, V. Tamma, C. d’Amato, K. Janowicz, B. Fu, A. Polleres, O. Seneviratne,
L. Kagal (Eds.), The Semantic Web – ISWC 2020, Springer International Publishing, Cham,
2020, pp. 464–481.
[8] L.-D. Ibáñez, I. Millard, H. Glaser, E. Simperl, An assessment of adoption and quality of
linked data in european open government data, in: C. Ghidini, O. Hartig, M. Maleshkova,
V. Svátek, I. Cruz, A. Hogan, J. Song, M. Lefrançois, F. Gandon (Eds.), The Semantic Web –
ISWC 2019, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 436–453.
[9] P. Pauwels, S. Zhang, Y.-C. Lee, Semantic web technologies in aec industry: A literature
overview, Automation in construction 73 (2017) 145–165.
29
[10] Q. Yang, Y. Zhang, Semantic interoperability in building design: methods and
tools, Computer-Aided Design 38 (2006) 1099–1112. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cad.2006.06.003.
[11] S. Abdul-Ghafour, P. Ghodous, B. Shariat, P. E., A common design-features ontology
for product data semantics interoperability, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM
International Conference on Web Intelligence, 2007, pp. 443–446. URL: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/WI.2007.73.
[12] P. Pauwels, R. De Meyer, J. Van Campenhout, Interoperability for the design and
construction industry through semantic web technology, Semantic Multimedia, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 6725 (2011) 143–158. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-23017-2_10.
[13] R. Scherer, P. Katranuschkov, M. Kadolsky, T. Laine, Ontology-based building information
model for integrated lifecycle energy management, in: Proceedings of the 9th European
Conference on Product and Process Modelling (ECPPM), CRC Press, 2012, pp. 30–41. URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b12516-148.
[14] M. Venugopal, C. Eastman, T. Jochen, An ontology-based analysis of the industry
foundation class schema for building information model exchanges, Advanced Engineering
Informatics 29 (2015) 940–957. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.09.006.
[15] T. L. H. D. Jeong, Interlinking life-cycle data spaces to support decision making in highway
asset management, Automation in Construction 64 (2016) 54–64. URL: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2015.12.016.
[16] N. El-Gohary, T. El-Diraby, Merging architectural, engineering, and construction
ontologies, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 25 (2009) 109–128.
[17] S. Törmä, Semantic linking of building information models, in: Proceedings of the
Seventh IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, 2013, pp. 412–419. URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSC.2013.80.
[18] P. Pauwels, Supporting decision-making in the building life-cycle using linked building
data, Buildings 3 (2014) 549–579. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings4030549.
[19] C. Cheng, G. Lau, J. Pan, K. Law, A. Jones, Domain-specific ontology mapping by corpus-
based semantic similarity, in: Proceedings of 2008 NSF CMMI Engineering Research
and Innovation Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, 2008. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
1783.1/36476.
[20] J. Beetz, J. Van Leeuwen, B. De Vries, 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, 2006, pp. 3426–3435.
[21] D. Ruikar, C. Anumba, A. Duke, P. Carrillo, N. Bouchlaghem, Using the semantic web
for project information management, Facilities 25 (2007) 507–524. URL: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/02632770710822607.
[22] C. Anumba, J. Pan, R. Issa, I. Mutis, Collaborative project information management in a
semantic web environment, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15
(2008) 78–94. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980810842089.
[23] C. Lima, B. Fies, A. Zarli, M. Bourdeau, M. Wetherill, Y. Rezgui, Towards an ifc-
enabled ontology for the building and construction industry: the e-cognos approach,
30
in: Proceedings of the eSM@RT 2002 Conference, Salford, UK, 2002, pp. 254–264.
[24] C. Lima, T. El-Diraby, B. Fies, A. Zarli, E. Ferneley, The E-Cognos project: current status and
future directions of an ontology-enabled IT solution infrastructure supporting knowledge
management in construction, in: Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003, pp. 1–8. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40671(2003)103.
[25] C. Lima, T. El-Diraby, J. Stephens, Ontology-based optimization of knowledge management
in construction, Journal of Information Technology in Construction 10 (2005) 305–327.
[26] P. Katranuschkov, A. Gehre, R. Scherer, An ontology framework to access ifc model data,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction 8 (2003) 413–437.
[27] Y.-C. Lee, C. Eastman, J.-K. Lee, Validations for ensuring the interoperability of data
exchange of a building information model, Automation in Construction 58 (2015) 176–195.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.010.
[28] A. Yurchyshyna, C. Faron-Zucker, N. Le Thanh, A. Zarli, Towards an ontology-
based approach for formalising expert knowledge in the conformity-checking model
in construction, in: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Product and Process
Modelling (ECPPM), Taylor and Francis, 2008, pp. 447–456. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/
9780203883327.ch50.
[29] K. Bouzidi, B. Fies, C. Faron-Zucker, A. Zarli, N. Le Thanh, Semantic web approach to
ease regulation compliance checking in construction industry, Future Internet 4 (2012)
830–851. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi4030830.
[30] J. Dimyadi, P. Pauwels, M. Spearpoint, C. Clifton, R. Amor, Querying a regulatory model
for compliant building design audit, in: Proceedings of the 32rd International CIB W78
Conference, Eindhoven, NL, 2015, pp. 139–148.
[31] C. Giblin, A. Liu, S. Müller, B. Pfitzmann, X. Zhou, Regulations expressed as logical models
(realm), in: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information
Systems, IOS Press, Amsterdam, NL, 2005, pp. 37–48.
[32] M. Sporny, D. Longley, G. Kellogg, M. Lanthaler, P.-A. Champin, N. Lindström, JSON-
LD 1.1: A JSON-based serialization for linked data, W3C recommendation, 2020. URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/.
[33] ISO 19650-1: Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil
engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM) — Information
management using building information modelling, 2018. URL: https://www.iso.org/
standard/68078.html.
[34] IEC 61355-1: Classification and designation of documents for plants, systems and
equipment, 2008. URL: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5379.
[35] SPARQL 1.1 Query Language: W3C Recommendation, 2013. URL: https://www.w3.org/
TR/sparql11-query/.
[36] SPARQL 1.1 Protocol: W3C Recommendation, 2013. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/
sparql11-protocol/.
[37] ISO 10303-21: Industrial automation systems and integration — Product data representation
and exchange, 2016. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/63141.html.
[38] L. Yu, A Developer’s Guide to the Semantic Web, 2nd ed., Springer, 2014.
31