Presentation given Thursday, September 19th 2019 at CIB W78, at Northumbria University, by Elio Hbeich (1st year PhD student). After a brief summary of main issues related to BIM/GIS interoperability, we depict our conceptual approach for achieving BIM/GIS semantic interoperability. This approach relies on a) federation among GIS and BIM bodies of knowledge , and b) granularity for defining and linking abstractions of the overall knowledge.

1. ACHIEVING INTEROPERABILITY
BETWEEN BIM AND GIS
Elio Hbeich, Ana Roxin, Nicolas Bus
18-20 September 2019, Newcastle, United Kingdom

2. About me
Who I am ?
• 1st year Phd
• Semantic urban
checker
Enterprise
• @CSTB
• Under the
supervision of
Nicolas BUS
PhD
• @UBFC
• Under the
supervision of
Ana ROXIN
2

3. Summary
1
• General Context – BIM and GIS
3
• Research Issue – reaching semantic interoperability among BIM and GIS
4
• State of the art – Types of Interoperability, Semantic Interoperability
5
• Related work
6
• Conceptual Approach – combining federation and granularity
7
• Advantages & Future Work
3

4. Context
What is included ?
How to check Urban
Regulation ?
How to improve
Urban Planning ?
How to improve Life
Cycle Project ?
What is happening?
Geometric
and
Semantic
Microscopic
and
Macroscopic
Current and
Historical
Static and
Dynamic
BIM
and
GIS
4
BIM standards GIS standards

5. BIM knowledge, GIS knowledge
BIM
Cost
Calculation
Analysis
Detailed
Design
Renovation
……..
BIM relies on the following international standards:
• Information Delivery Manual (ISO 29481)
• Model View Definition (ISO 29481-3)
• Industry Foundation Classes (ISO 16739).
GIS
Elevation
Transportation
AddressesBoundaries
…….
GIS relies on the ISO TC 211 family standard
5
BIM Knowledge GIS Knowledge

6. Urban environments crystalize incompatibilities
▪ GIS building parts are divided
into outer and internal installation
while those concepts don’t exist in
BIM
▪ GIS uses ISO 19107 while BIM
uses ISO 10303-42 for
describing geometric connections
among elements.
▪ GIS urban spatial intelligence
relies on OGC CityGML,
IndoorGML, Moving Features,
ARML (Augmented Reality
Markup Language) while BIM is
based on IFC
Impossible to manage changes
dynamically and apply consistent
reasoning e.g. executing urban rules
in a suitable time frame.
6

7. Create a knowledge continuum for efficient and coherent reasoningCreate a knowledge continuum for efficient and coherent reasoning
Research issue
7
BIM Knowledge GIS Knowledge
Need for Interoperability [ISO 21127:2014]:
a) two systems can exchange information, and/or
b) multiple systems can be accessed with a single method.

8. Semantic
Interoperability
"interoperability so that the meaning of
the data model within the context of a
subject area is understood by the
participating systems"
(ISO/IEC 19941:2017)
Syntactic
Interoperability
"ability of two or more systems or services
to exchange structured information"
(ISO 16678:2014)
Physical / Data
Interoperability
"interoperability concerning the creation,
meaning, computation, use, transfer, and
exchange of data"
(ISO/IEC 20944-1:2013)
Syntax standards e.g. XML,
HTML, WSDL, SOAP
Hardware standards e.g.
Ethernet, standard protocols
e.g. TCP/IP and HTTP.
Types of Interoperability
8
✓
✓

9. Standard approaches for Semantic Interoperability
9
Unification Integration Federation
Meta-model
BIM Knowledge GIS Knowledge
BIM Knowledge GIS Knowledge
Common form
BIM
Knowledge
GIS
Knowledge
◼ Models are built and
interpreted according
to the common form
◼ No dynamic agreement
upon mappings
◼ Models are mapped
to a meta-model
◼ Meta-model needs to
be agreed upon
◼ Links are explicitly
and formally defined
◼ Most-challenging to
implement

10. Previous Work
References Research Characteristics
(Mignard & Nicolle, 2014)
Presents semantic extension called Urban Information Modelling (UIM), that defines spatial,
temporal and multi-representation concepts using extensible model based on the C-DMF
language.
(Deng, Cheng, & Anumba, 2016)
Presents an automatic data mapping between IFC and CityGML in different level of details
(LOD), using a reference ontology
(Floros, Pispidikis, & Dimopoulou,
2017)
Transform the IFC model into CityGML as a potential way to achieve interoperability
between GIS and BIM
Mignard, C., & Nicolle, C. (2014). Merging BIM and GIS using ontologies application to
urban facility management in ACTIVe3D. Computers in Industry, 65(9), 1276–1290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2014.07.008
Deng, Y., Cheng, J. C. P., & Anumba, C. (2016). Mapping between BIM and 3D GIS in
different levels of detail using schema mediation and instance comparison. Automation in
Construction, 67, 1–21.
Floros, G., Pispidikis, I., & Dimopoulou, E. (2017). INVESTIGATING INTEGRATION
CAPABILITIES BETWEEN IFC AND CITYGML LOD3 FOR 3D CITY MODELLING. ISPRS -
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, XLII-4/W7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W7-1-2017
Previous studies approach the interoperability issue
by integrating or unifying BIM and GIS models.
Nonetheless they have the following drawbacks:
▪ Generating data loss
▪ Presenting solution for a specific use case
▪ Mapping only building models
▪ Promoting one model over the other.
10

11. Conceptual approach
Semantic
modelling
Semantic
modelling
• Consistent semantic modelling for existing standards and models in both GIS and BIM
• Starting from ISO TC 211 ontologies, ifcOWL and semantic approaches for MVDs
AligningAligning
• Together with domain experts, identify which semantic rules must be defined among BIM and GIS
concepts
• Existing rules from ISO 19109 application schemas and ISO 19110 feature catalogues allow to
represent IFC by means of UML, which is not formal
Apply
granularity
Apply
granularity
• Identify and formally describe knowledge abstractions corresponding to business needs e.g. LOD,
LOIN, and specify them as knowledge granules
• Identify the ensemble of relations that cannot distinguish two elements (indiscernibility), and build
the complementary ensemble
11

12. 2D Federation in our Conceptual Approach
12
a) Identify existing standard ontologies in BIM and GIS domains
Consistent semantic modelling BIM knowledge and GIS knowledgelinkedBIM linkedGIS
b) Federate the knowledge ensembles
-> Horizontal federation needed for real world knowledge
Apply granularity for interconnecting the needed abstractions
-> Vertical federation e.g. identify and use only the set of
predicates that allow distinguishing 2 concepts

13. Mapping example
Metamodel:
• UML
• General Feature Model (ISO 19109)
Conceptual schemas- abstract schemas:
• Core profile of spatial schema (ISO 19137)
• Temporal Schema (ISO 19108)
• Referencing by coordinates (ISO 19111), etc.
Conceptual schemas- application schemas:
• INSPIRE
• OGC CityGML
• LandInfra/ InfraGML , etc.
Implementation schemas:
GML , OWL, Geo-Package, etc.
Domain Specific layer:
• Building Controls Domain
• Plumbing Structure Domain, etc.
Shared Element layer:
• Shared Bldg Services Element
• Shared Management Element
• Shared Building Element, etc.
Core layer:
• Control Extension
• Product Extension
• Kernel, etc.
Resource Definition layer:
• Date Time Resource
• Geometric Constraint Resource
• Property Resource, etc.
BIM Data Schemas described by ISO 16739-1GIS Layer of abstraction defined by ISO/TC 211family standard Mapping
Conceptual schemas- abstract schemas:
• Core Profile of Spatial Schema (ISO 19137)
• Temporal Schema (ISO 19108)
• Referencing by Coordinates (ISO 19111), etc.
13

14. Granularity in our Approach
14
This photo has a CC BY-SA-NC licenceLevel 0
Level N
Level N+1
Level N+3
Raw data
Federated
and Linked
data
Abstraction
Upper abstraction
P is the ensemble of predicates available in
a global theory T e.g. horizontally
federated knowledge.
Each considered abstraction becomes an
interpretation domain D’ for T. Once R is
defined (subset of P), the predicates
pertaining for a given abstraction form its
complementary ensemble ∁ 𝑃 𝑅
Partitions of P corresponding to each
abstraction considered must be formally
and explicitly identified.
Hobbs’ indiscernibility
relation (Hobbs 1985)
∀ 𝑥, 𝑦 [ 𝑥~𝑦 ≡
∀𝑝 ∈ 𝑅 𝑝 𝑥 ≡ 𝑝 𝑦 ]

15. Advantages of the considered approach
Advantages of federation
• BIM and GIS knowledge remain independent from each other
• Seamless interpretation of new concepts from BIM or GIS
• GIS knowledge can be queried with BIM concepts and vice-versa
Advantages of granularity
• Formal specification for Level Of Detail (LOD)
• Efficient reasoning at considered abstraction level
• Applying only constraints and regulations as pertaining to the
considered abstraction
15

16. Future Work
Aligning BIM
and GIS
Specify
granular
partitions
Adapt urban
regulations as
logical rules
Automatic
activation of
rules
16

17. Thank you for your attention
QUESTIONS?
17
Contacts:
elio.hbeich@cstb.fr
ana-maria.roxin@ubfc.fr