=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3824/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=Semantic Interoperability Using Ontologies and Standards for Building Product Properties
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3824/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3824
|authors=He Tan,Rahel Kebede,Annika Moscati,Peter Johansson
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ldac/TanKMJ24
}}
==Semantic Interoperability Using Ontologies and Standards for Building Product Properties==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3824/paper2.pdf
Semantic Interoperability Using Ontologies and
Standards for Building Product Properties
He Tan1,* , Rahel Kebede2 , Annika Moscati2 and Peter Johansson2
1
Department of Computing, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Sweden.
2
Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting Science, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Sweden.
Abstract
Both standards and ontologies are among the important components to realize the vision of BIM (Building
Information Modeling). They provide a community consensus for interpretation, communication and
interoperability of building data. This consensus is pivotal in enabling diverse stakeholders and systems
to seamlessly collaborate and share data across the entire building life cycle. In this paper we describe
the development of ontologies for building product properties, aligning with standards, and demonstrate
their usage in achieving semantic interoperability. First, a top-domain ontology, BPPO (Buiding Product
Property Ontology), is developed for building product properties. This top-domain ontology is used to
guide the development of domain ontologies for properties in different categories of products or groups of
product categories. Subsequently, a domain ontology, LPPO (Lighting Product Property Ontology), is built
for lighting product properties, with guidance from BPPO, in this work. The ontological terminologies
of both BPPO and LPPO are aligned with the standards set forth by the BIM community. Furthermore,
the ontologies have been used in an application to support and enhance the interoperability between the
manufacturer’s product database and the BIM platform.
Keywords
Ontology, Standard, Semantic Interoperability, BIM, Product Properties
1. Introduction
Today, BIM (Building Information Modeling) has evolved from level 0, which was focused on
2D CAD and exchange of paper-based drawings, to the level 3 which aims for a high level
of integration and interoperability between different stakeholders and systems using digital
and object-oriented building information models [1]. Ensuring interoperability among various
software tools and platforms used by different stakeholders, such as architects, engineers,
contractors, and facility managers, is crucial for the successful implementation and adoption
of BIM processes. To address this challenge in implementing the BIM maturity level 3, both
standards and ontologies play an important role.
In BIM, properties are critical as they serve to define and describe building elements. They
provide essential information about the functions and characteristics of components, materials,
and systems used in the construction. For example, the classification systems, such as the Uni-
LDAC 2024: 12th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction Workshop, June 13–14, 2024, Bochum, Germany
*
Corresponding author.
$ he.tan@ju.se (H. Tan)
0000-0003-1303-9791 (H. Tan); 0000-0002-9164-6485 (R. Kebede); 0000-0003-4216-9165 (P. Johansson)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
23
class 1 , MasterFormat 2 and CoClass 3 , organize and classify things based on their properties. To
support interoperability between different stakeholders and enhance the information exchange
and integration in BIM, properties need to be created in an agreed manner on their naming,
definition, measurement and other relevant aspects. In 2020 the EN ISO 23386 [2] was published
as a standard to guide on how to define properties used in construction.
Product properties have been one of the central focuses within the context of BIM [3]. Building
product manufacturers are important actors in building realization processes. Many product
manufacturers have adopted BIM platforms to describe and share their product data through
BIM objects. However, this approach has its own set of challenges in achieving interoperability
between manufacturers’ databases and the BIM platform [4]. Facilitating the exchange and
integration of manufacturers’ product data in BIM platforms at an early stage of the building
life cycle is critical for the productivity of the construction processes.
Standardization efforts have placed a significant amount of attention on the product prop-
erties. Given the great amount of products used in the construction industry, one solution
is to undertake standardization work for different categories or groups of product categories.
For example, the standard Technical Specification (CEN/TS) SIS-CEN/TS 17623 [5], has been
developed specifically for the products used in lighting systems. Furthermore, building upon
EN ISO 23386:2020 as a foundation, the Technical Committee ISO/TC 274 Light and Lighting
in cooperation with CIE Joint Technical Committee 6 4 is currently conducting the work of
producing an ISO standard specifically for lighting product properties, based on this CEN/TS
SIS-CEN/TS 17623.
Recently, many studies (e.g. [6, 7, 8]) have promoted ontology and the Semantic Web technolo-
gies as potential solutions for supporting integration and interoperability in BIM. Specifically,
ontologies can provide a standardized vocabulary and framework for representing the data and
information, which will improve communication, collaboration, and decision-making among
stakeholders. The ontology languages for the Semantic Web, e.g., RDFS [9] and OWL languages
[10], can express explicitly the concepts and terms and their semantic descriptions in a machine
readable manner. In addition to the ontology languages, the validation languages like SHACL
[11] and rule languages such as SWRL [12], can be used to evaluate and infer over the specifica-
tions. For example, when digital BIM models are built and/or annotated using the concepts and
terms, ontology and ontology-enhanced technologies can improve the quality of the models on
their semantic descriptions and significantly increase the performance of accessing, integration
and interoperability of building data using the models [13, 14].
In this paper we describe the development of ontologies for building product properties,
aligning with standards, and demonstrate their usage in achieving semantic interoperability.
First, a top domain ontology, Building Product Property Ontology (BPPO), was developed
according to the standard EN ISO 23386:2020. This ontology will serve as a foundational
knowledge for developing specific property ontologies for particular categories of products.
Then, with the guidance of the top domain ontology, an ontology was developed for lighting
product properties (LPPO). The development of the ontology LPPO also takes as the input the
1
https://www.thenbs.com/our-tools/uniclass
2
https://www.csiresources.org/standards/masterformat
3
https://byggtjanst.se/tjanst/coclass
4
https://cie.co.at/technical-work/division6/technical-committees
24
specifications identified in the standard SIS-CEN/TS 17623. Then the usage of the ontologies is
demonstrated in an application to support the interoperability between manufacturer’s product
databases and BIM platforms.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we present the well-known
standards and ontologies developed for properties in the field of BIM, specially concerning
semantic interoperability. In Section 3 we describe the development of the ontologies BPPO and
LPPO with the guidance of standards and describe the ontologies. In Section 4 we presented
the usage of the developed ontologies to support semantic interoperability in an application.
Finally, the paper concludes in Section 5.
2. Related Work
In the realm of BIM, foundational texts like the BIM Handbook (e.g. [15]) identifies the sig-
nificance of semantic interoperability in improving communication and collaboration in the
construction industry. Recently, it has been acknowledged wihtin BIM that using ontologies to
represent and organize BIM data is a solution to improving semantic interoperability [7, 16, 17].
Ongoing standardization efforts by organizations such as ISO and buildingSMART 5 also under-
scores the importance of standards in achieving semantic interoperability. In other domains
that are more advanced in addressing issues of semantic interoperability than BIM, works
have also discussed various issues related to the development and application of standards
and ontologies. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of collaboration and integration
between ontologies and standards to support semantic interoperability [18, 19, 20]. Today,
much work has been done on developing ontologies to facilitate a common understanding of
building information, thereby supporting semantic interoperability. In this section we discuss
briefly well-known standards, data dictionaries and ontologies that are relevant for describing
properties, especially product properties, within BIM.
2.1. Maintaining properties according to EN ISO 23386:2020
The standard EN ISO 23386:2020 specifies the requirements on describing, authoring and
maintaining properties used in the construction industry. The standard intends to establish
interoperability between data dictionaries and build a network of the data dictionaries for
properties. The mappings between the terms used in the interconnected data dictionaries need
to be maintained. In the network, each property should be identified by a globally unique
identifier (GUID). Each property is described by a number of attributes. An attribute may follow
the management rules, such as "mandatory" and "calculated". The value of an attribute can be
a single value, an enumeration or multiple values of a certain type. Several properties can be
organized into a group.
2.2. Product Properties in Data Dictionaries
In this section, we discuss how product properties are described in several well-known BIM data
dictionaries. The overview is presented in Table 1. All the data dictionaries are multi-disciplines
5
https://www.buildingsmart.org/
25
Table 1
Data dictionary standards
Standard Domain Format GUID Interconnected
Uniclass multi-disciplines tables, API No No
MasterFormat multi-disciplines tables, API No No
UniFormat multi-disciplines tables, API No No
ETIM technical products XML No No
IFC Schema multi-disciplines EXPRESS, Yes No
XSD, ifcOWL
bSDD multi-disciplines tables, JSON, Yes Yes
RDF, XML, API
CoClass multi-disciplines API No Yes
and are not specifically designed for product properties or any one particular category or groups
of categories of building products. The terms in these data dictionaries can be read by human,
by machine via machine languages or via APIs. Not all data dictionaries use GUID to identify
properties. Most of the data dictionaries have been used by the industry for many years and have
a well established coding system. bsDD has made effort to conform to EN ISO 23386:2020. It uses
URIs as GUID to uniquely identify terms. The mappings between the terms for interconnected
data dictionaries, i.e. "interconnected" in Table 1, are not well implemented in most of the data
dictionaries. Although most of the data dictionaries do not contains mapping to other data
dictionaries, the mapping is critical for semantic interoperability, specially when multiple data
dictionaries are used a BIM project. Thus, the mappings between the terms in several different
data dictionary have been studied in various research work, e.g. [21, 22].
2.3. Ontologies for Product and Product Properties
There has been a significant amount of effort to introduce ontology into BIM. For example, the
BIMSO ontology [23] was developed to encode all the elements from the UniFormat II using
OWL ontology language. ifcOWL [24, 25] has been a big project done by the International
buildingSmart consortium 6 , which is to encode all the elements in the IFC Schema using
OWL ontology language. The Linked Building Data Community Group of the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) 7 developed an ontology for describing the core topological concepts
of a building, the Building Topology Ontology (BOT) [26]. It has focused on the high-level
description of storeys and spaces, the building elements they may contain, and their 3D geometry.
The Building Product Ontology (BPO) [27] was developed to provide a top level ontology for
describing building products. It has focused on providing a framework to describe assembly
structures and component interconnections of building product components, and enable to
attach properties to components. We have aligned the properties represented in our ontologies
to the class Product in the BPO. Oraskari [28] demonstrates an API which enables to generate
OWL ontology using the terms retrieved from bsDD data dictionaries for specific purposes.
Representing properties using ontology is an important area of research within the context of
6
https://www.buildingsmart.org/
7
https://www.w3.org/community/lbd/
26
Figure 1: The ontology development process
BIM. A number of work has been focused on representing properties using ontology. In [21] the
authors discussed the complexity of the property ontology when converting IFC to RDF data.
The BIMDO ontology (Building Design Ontology) extends the BIMSO ontology with the design
properties for building elements [16]. The Ontology for Property Management (OPM) [29] is
an ontology developed to managing property changes of a building element. It has focused on
describing temporal properties that are subject to changes as the building design evolves. In [30]
the authors developed a top domain ontology, the Interconnected Data Dictionary Ontology
(IDDO), mainly to support NLP (natural language processing) methods to extract property
knowledge from unstructured guidelines or building codes into a structured class hierarchy.
In the work presented in this paper the development of the top domain product property
ontology has been in accordance with the requirements and specifications identified in the
ISO standard that were developed to support the implementation of BIM. The ISO standard
gives the recommendations on how to describe properties including how to manage property
changes, status and versions. The aim for developing the top domain ontology is to facilitate
the development of specific ontologies for categories or category groups of products.
3. The Building Product Property Ontology (BPPO) and the
Lighting Product Property Ontology (LPPO)
In general, the ontology development in this work has followed the NeOn ontology engineering
methodology [31] and has focused on applying scenario 2 (reusing and re-engineering non-
ontological resources). We used OWL 2 DL as the representation language for the ontology.
During the development process, one knowledge engineer and one domain expert from the
area of building and construction were involved.
As shown in Figure 1, the ontology development process is organized into two phases. In
the first step, a top domain ontology Building Product Property Ontology (BPPO) is developed.
It defines the representation of building product properties, conformed to the requirements
specified on properties in the standard EN ISO 23386:2020. This ontology will provide a foun-
dation for building more specialized property ontologies for a particular product category or
groups of product categories. Figure 2 shows the example attributes specified in the standard
for describing property. Each row in the table records one attribute. Each attribute is described
27
Figure 2: Example property attributes specified in EN ISO 23386:2020
by a few parameters. The main transformation rules applied to create the ontology BPPO from
the tabular structured data in the standard is given as below:
Algorithm 1 Transform attributes in standard to ontology elements
create a class Property
for each attribute do
if Interconnected dictionaries management rule
or Request form management rule is mandatory then
create a property for the class Property
if Type is single-value then
add the property range as specified in Type
else if Type is enumeration single value then
create a class to enumerate the values specified in List of values
add the class as the property range
else if Type is multiple-values then
the property range will be defined in specific property ontology
end if
end if
add the description and example of the attribute using rdfs:comment
and skos:example respectively
end for
The fragment of the BPPO shown in Figure 3 represents the example property attributes
shown in Fig. 2. The class Property has the relation propertyOf to the class Product in the
BPO. Property has overlapping with the classes Attribute and RangedAttribute in the
BPO, but logically they are not equivalent and do not have subclass/superclass relationships,
so skos:related is used to represent the associations between them. The definition of
the class Status is given as Status ≡ {active, inactive}. The range of the property
28
Figure 3: A fragment of the BPPO
Figure 4: Example properties specified in SIS-CEN/TS 17623:2021
usedInCountry is defined as owl:Thing, since the country list is specific to particular product
property ontology. For example, when a property is used in the countires Sweden and UK, the
range is defined using a class countriesUsingProperty given countriesUsingProperty
≡ {Sweden, UK}. As given the transformation rule, the optional attributes currently are not
represented in the BPPO. This was suggested by the domain expert. The standard SIS-CEN/TS
17623:2021 also shows that the optional attributes are not used.
In the second step, the development of the property ontology for a particular category of
products is guided by the top-domain ontology BPPO. In this work an ontology for representing
the lighting product properties is developed. During the development, SIS-CEN/TS 17623:2021, a
standard for "BIM Properties for lighting – Luminaires and sensing devices” is the non-ontological
resource used to gain the knowledge. Currently, standards are being developed for different
29
Figure 5: Representation of an electric lighting product property in the LPPO
categories of products. One of the product categories where this work have come rather far is
luminaires and sensing devices. Fig. 4 shows the example mechanical properties of lighting
product. Each row in the table records one property. 6 attributes defined in EN ISO 23386:2020
are used to describe each property in this standard. ID and symbol are the new attributes
introduced in this standard. In total there are 8 tables of which each organizes a set of properties
into a group. The ontology has been developed using the concepts and properties defined in the
BPPO. Fig. 5 shows a fragment of the LPPO which represent the property glow wire resistance
described in Fig. 4. The ontology fragment written in the format Turtle is given below.
Availability: The ontologies have the permanent w3id http://w3id.org/ppon/bppo/ and
http://w3id.org/ppon/lppo/, and currently are maintained on the gitlab https://github.com/
tanhe-git/ppon.
:1LrBLaYtnCARKperF_2Ykh rdfs:subClassOf bppo:Property ;
bppo:memberOf :MechanicalProeprty;
bppo:hasGUID "1LrBLaYtnCARKperF_2Ykh";
:hasID "01-0017";
bppo:hasName "glow wire resistance"@en ;
bppo:description "The glow wire test for fire hazard (see EN
˓→ 60695-2-10) to test electrical products, assemblies or
˓→ individual components."@en ;
bppo:digitalFormat "(IE0, C)";
lppo:valueSet :glowWireResisteanceTemperatureValueSet;
rdfs:seeAlso "EN 60695-2-10".
:glowWireResistanceTemperatureValueSet owl:equivalentClass
[ rdf:type rdfs:Datatype;
30
Figure 6: Semantic interoperability using product property ontology
owl:oneOf ( "550C"^^xsd:string "650°C"^^xsd:string
˓→ "750C"^^xsd:string "850C"^^xsd:string "960C^^xsd:string)
] .
4. Using the Ontologies to Support Semantic Interoperability
Ontology evaluation has been a challenge in the area of ontology engineering for a long time
[32, 33, 34, 35]. In [36, 37], the authors argue that one way to evaluate an ontology is to assess
its usability or appicability in the tasks it targets. As described in Section 3, the BPPO is a top
domain ontology and serves as a foundational knowledge base to support the development
of specific ontologies for particular categories of products or groups of product categories.
In Section 3, we have presented this usage when the LPPO ontology is developed based on
the BPPO. In this section we will mainly present the usage of the LPPO to support semantic
interoperability between product manufactures’ database and BIM platform in a real world
example application.
As illustrated in Figure 6, product property ontology acts as the reference to establish the
semantic relationships between the concepts and terms used in manufacturer’s database schema
and product description model used in BIM platform. Figure 7 details the architecture for
the semantic interoperability using ontology presented in Figure 6. The component Mapping
Generator in the architecture illustrated in Figure 7 will generate the mappings between man-
ufacturer’s database schema and the ontology, and between BIM platform’s product description
model and the ontology. The component Ontology-enabled Query Interface will rewrite
the query sent from BIM platform to a query readable and understandable by manufacturer’s
database API using the mappings, and rewrite the query result sent back from manufacturer’s
database API to the data model readable and understandable by BIM platform. A prototype
of the architecture shown in Fig 7 was implemented and presented in [38]. The prototype
aims to enable semantic interoperability between the BIM authoring tool Autodesk Revit 8
and an electric lighting product manufacturer’s database. Through this prototype, product
manufacturers share their data via the ontology-based query interface, eliminating the need to
8
https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit/
31
Figure 7: The architecture of using product property ontology to support the interoperability between
manufacturer’s database and BIM platform
outsource the data.
Be more specific, the prototype was built to assist designers and architects to gain access to
product data that is specific to their use cases at hand regardless of their expertise at managing
data, and enables manufacturers to maintain their interest for data autonomy, while still giving
designers and architects access to data from their databases. In this prototype the manufacturer’s
database has been implemented as a RDF triplestore by populating the LPPO ontology. The
triplestore was implemented using Stardog 9 . The database query API is a SPARQL endpoint.
The mappings are created using the LPPO and implemented as a part of the prototype. The
ontology-enabled query interface is implemented using visual programming in Dynamo 10 which
is a popular visual programming software packages supported by BIM platforms. Additionally,
Dynamo works with Python scripts. The Dynamo program 1) composes SPARQL query given a
product data search task, 2) connects to the manufacturer’s database, 3) parses the query results
and 4) loads the results to a Revit description model. In the steps 1) and 4) the mappings are
utilized. The prototype is demonstrated and evaluated in a real world use case in BIM project.
It is to support lighting engineer in simulating the number of lighting fixtures needed for a
conference room in Revit using lighting product properties. Four participants from the electric
lighting product manufacturer and a BIM consulting firm have participated the evaluation and
work on the simulation case using the prototype. The application has shown the effeciency of
the LPPO ontology to build semantic interoperability between manufacturer’ database and BIM
platform.
9
https://www.stardog.com/
10
https://dynamobim.org/
32
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we presented two ontologies of properties for products used in the construction
industry. BPPO is a top domain ontology which represents the attributes standardized in an ISO
standard developed by the BIM community for describing properties. This ontology provides the
classes and properties to support modeling of the properties for particular categories of products
in a standardized manner. The ontology LPPO represents and standardizes the properties that
describe the characteristics of electric lighting products using the classes and properties defined
in BPPO. Further, we showed the use of the LPPO to support the interoperability between
manufacturer’s product database and BIM platform.
As suggested by EN ISO 23386:2020, there is a need to build a network of interconnected data
dictionaries to describe, author and maintain properties in the construction industry. Ideally,
each data dictionary in the network defines the properties for particular category of products
or group of product categories. To address this need, we have followed the suggestion put forth
in EN ISO 23386:2020 and developed the top domain ontology BPPO and the domain ontology
LPPO. One direction of the future work is on expanding and enhancing the network of product
property ontologies to cover a wider range of building product categories.
Acknowledgments
This work has been conducted in the research project "Manufactured products’ information
provision for light environments (MAP4Light), which is financially supported by the Swedish
Knowledge Foundation, and the research project "Prototype for products’ information flow
(ProFlow)" , which is funded by Vinnova (the Sweden’s innovation agency). The authors would
like to thank all participants from industrial partners Fagerhult Belysning, Informationsbyg-
gnarna, OBOS and Inwido.
References
[1] M. Bew, M. Richards, BIM maturity model, strategy paper for the government construction
client group, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, London, UK. (2011).
[2] ISO 23386:2020, ISO 23386:2020 Building information modelling and other digital processes
used in construction — Methodology to describe, author and maintain properties in in-
terconnected data dictionarie, Standard, International Organization for Standardization,
2020.
[3] S. Palos, A. Kiviniemi, J. Kuusisto, Future perspectives on product data management in
building information modeling, Construction Innovation 14 (2014) 52–68.
[4] F. Abanda, J. Tah, F. Cheung, Bim in off-site manufacturing for buildings, Journal of
building engineering 14 (2017) 89–102.
[5] SIS-CEN/TS17623:2021, SIS-CEN/TS17623:2021 BIM Properties for lighting - Luminaires
and sensing devices, Standard, Swedish Institute for Standards, 2021.
[6] Q. Yang, Y. Zhang, Semantic interoperability in building design: Methods and tools,
Computer-Aided Design 38 (2006) 1099–1112.
33
[7] P. Pauwels, S. Zhang, Y.-C. Lee, Semantic web technologies in AEC industry: A literature
overview, Automation in construction 73 (2017) 145–165.
[8] R. Z. Kebede, A. Moscati, P. Johansson, Semantic web for information exchange between
the building and manufacturing industries: a literature review, in: 37th International
Conference of CIB W78, Sao Paulo-online, Brazil, 18-20 August, 2020, pp. 248–265.
[9] B. McBride, The resource description framework (RDF) and its vocabulary description
language RDFS, in: Handbook on ontologies, Springer, 2004, pp. 51–65.
[10] D. L. McGuinness, F. Van Harmelen, et al., OWL web ontology language overview, W3C
recommendation 10 (2004) 2004.
[11] H. Knublauch, D. Kontokostas, Shapes constraint language (SHACL), W3C recommenda-
tion (2017).
[12] I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, M. Dean, et al., SWRL: A
semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member submission 21
(2004) 1–31.
[13] G. Gao, Y.-S. Liu, P. Lin, M. Wang, M. Gu, J.-H. Yong, BIMTag: Concept-based automatic
semantic annotation of online BIM product resources, Advanced Engineering Informatics
31 (2017) 48–61.
[14] A.-H. Hamdan, R. J. Scherer, Integration of BIM-related bridge information in an ontological
knowledgebase., in: LDAC, 2020, pp. 77–90.
[15] R. Sacks, C. Eastman, G. Lee, P. Teicholz, BIM handbook: A guide to building information
modeling for owners, designers, engineers, contractors, and facility managers, John Wiley
& Sons, 2018.
[16] M. Niknam, S. Karshenas, A shared ontology approach to semantic representation of BIM
data, Automation in Construction 80 (2017) 22–36.
[17] F. Sadeghineko, B. Kumar, Application of semantic web ontologies for the improvement of
information exchange in existing buildings, Construction Innovation 22 (2022) 444–464.
[18] H. Mi, P. D. Thomas, Ontologies and standards in bioscience research: for machine or for
human, Frontiers in Physiology 2 (2011) 5.
[19] B. Henderson-Sellers, C. Gonzalez-Perez, T. McBride, G. Low, An ontology for ISO software
engineering standards: 1) Creating the infrastructure, Computer Standards & Interfaces
36 (2014) 563–576.
[20] C. Gonzalez-Perez, B. Henderson-Sellers, T. McBride, G. C. Low, X. Larrucea, An Ontology
for ISO software engineering standards: 2) Proof of concept and application, Computer
Standards & Interfaces 48 (2016) 112–123.
[21] M. Bonduel, J. Oraskari, P. Pauwels, M. Vergauwen, R. Klein, The IFC to linked building
data converter-current status, in: Proceedings of the 6th Linked Data in Architecture and
Construction Workshop (LDAC 2018), volume 2159, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2018,
pp. 34–43.
[22] X. Ding, J. Yang, L. Liu, W. Huang, P. Wu, Integrating IFC and CityGML model at schema
level by using linguistic and text mining techniques, Ieee Access 8 (2020) 56429–56440.
[23] M. Niknam, F. Jalaei, S. Karshenas, Integrating BIM and product manufacturer data using
the semantic web technologies, Journal of Information Technology in Construction 24
(2019) 424–439.
[24] J. Beetz, J. Van Leeuwen, B. De Vries, ifcOWL: A case of transforming EXPRESS schemas
34
into ontologies, Ai Edam 23 (2009) 89–101.
[25] P. Pauwels, W. Terkaj, EXPRESS to OWL for construction industry: Towards a recom-
mendable and usable ifcOWL ontology, Automation in construction 63 (2016) 100–133.
[26] M. H. Rasmussen, M. Lefrançois, G. F. Schneider, P. Pauwels, BOT: The building topology
ontology of the W3C linked building data group, Semantic Web 12 (2021) 143–161.
[27] A. Wagner, U. Rüppel, BPO: the building product ontology for assembled products, in:
Proceedings of the 7th Linked Data in Architecture and Construction workshop (LDAC
2019)’, Lisbon, Portugal, 2019, p. 12.
[28] J. Oraskari, Live Web Ontology for buildingSMART Data Dictionary, in: Forum Bauinfor-
matik, 2021, pp. 166–173.
[29] M. Holten Rasmussen, M. Lefrançois, M. Bonduel, C. Anker Hviid, J. Karlshøj, OPM: An
ontology for describing properties that evolve over time, in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings,
volume 2159, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2018, pp. 24–33.
[30] S. Zentgraf, P. Hagedorn, M. König, Multi-requirements ontology engineering for auto-
mated processing of document-based building codes to linked building data properties, in:
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, volume 1101, IOP Publishing,
2022, p. 092007.
[31] M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Fernandez-Lopez, The NeOn methodology
framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development, Applied ontology
10 (2015) 107–145.
[32] A. Gómez-Pérez, Ontology evaluation, in: Handbook on ontologies, Springer, 2004, pp.
251–273.
[33] J. Brank, M. Grobelnik, D. Mladenic, A survey of ontology evaluation techniques, in:
Proceedings of the conference on data mining and data warehouses (SiKDD 2005), Citeseer,
2005, pp. 166–170.
[34] D. Vrandečić, Ontology evaluation, in: Handbook on ontologies, Springer, 2009, pp.
293–313.
[35] J. Raad, C. Cruz, A survey on ontology evaluation methods, in: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, part of
the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering
and Knowledge Management, 2015.
[36] R. Porzel, R. Malaka, A task-based approach for ontology evaluation, in: ECAI Workshop
on Ontology Learning and Population, Valencia, Spain, volume 1, Citeseer Valencia, Spain,
2004.
[37] H. Tan, P. Lambrix, Selecting an ontology for biomedical text mining, in: Proceedings of
the BioNLP 2009 Workshop, 2009, pp. 55–62.
[38] R. Kebede, A. Moscati, H. Tan, P. Johansson, Integration of manufacturers’ product data in
BIM platforms using semantic web technologies, Automation in Construction 144 (2022)
104630.
35