BIM Framework

Thesis

36. BIM Ontology

Aug 16, 2015

Figure 1. The BIM ontology v3.1 (Neuron Model v0.4, Updated July 28, 2016)

IMPORTANT: newer versions of the BIM Ontology are published as a BIMe Initiative resource. As of July 28, 2017, the image above and the information below may be out of date.

The BIM ontology is an informal, semi-structured, conceptual domain ontology used for knowledge acquisition and communication between people. It is intended to represent knowledge interactions (push/pull) between BIM players, their deliverables and requirements (Figure 2) as described within Papers A1 and A2 (Succar, Sher, & Aranda-Mena, 2007) (Succar, 2009) and facilitate the validation of conceptual models (Shanks, Tansley, & Weber, 2003).

The BIM ontology includes BIM-specific concepts, their relations and attributes which facilitate analysis of domain knowledge (Noy & McGuinness, 2001), enable the construction of a domain framework (Studer, Benjamins, & Fensel, 1998), and support knowledge acquisition and communication (Milton, 2007a, 2007b) (Cottam, 1999) (Studer et al., 1998). Figure 2 below illustrates how ontological objects underlie the BIM Framework. The concept map (Figure 2 - right) is a visual representation of the ontological relationship between the three concepts (BIM Fields, BIM Stages and BIM Lenses); while the visual knowledge model (Figure 2 - left) abstracts these relations into the Tri-axial Model, a simplified graphical representation to facilitate communication. As discussed in Papers A1 and A2, this combination of visual modelling, driven by explicit ontological relations, renders the BIM Framework and its many conceptual constructs more accessible for analysis, modification and extension.

Also, as depicted in the Conceptual Hierarchy post, ontological relations enable a ‘conceptual mesh’ linking different types of conceptual constructs: frameworks, models, taxonomies, classifications and specialized dictionary terms.

Figure 2. Visual Knowledge Model (left) + Concept Map (right)

Generating the BIM ontology

The BIM ontology has been generated by amending and reusing existing ontologies; a process recommended by Noy and McGuiness (2001). The reuse of an existing ontology followed Gruber’s criteria for shared ontologies: clarity, coherence, extensibility, minimal encoding bias and minimum ontological commitment (Gruber, 1995). Based on these criteria, the BIM ontology was first derived from the General Technological Ontology (Milton, 2007a) (Milton, 2007b) and the General Process Ontology (Cottam, 1999). While earlier iterations of the BIM ontology followed source definitions, newer iterations are more closely matched with the conceptual and practical requirements of the BIM domain.

Knowledge Objects

The BIM ontology comprises of four high-level knowledge objects: concepts, attributes, relations and knowledge Sets (Table 1):

	Knowledge Objects	Description	Examples
I	Concepts (Table 2)	A mental construct	Component; Document; Role
II	Attributes (Table 3)	Values and qualifiers associated with Concepts	Cost; Count; Description
III	Relations (Table 4)	Connections between Concepts; the effect of one Concept on another	Approves; Detects; Supplies
IV	Knowledge Sets (Table 5)	A purposeful compilation of Concepts, their Attributes and Relations	Knowledge Foundations; Knowledge Blocks; Knowledge Views

Table 1. BIM Ontology Knowledge Objects (v3.0, last updated August 16, 2015)

I. Concepts

Ability	Activity	Certificate	Component	Conception	Conceptual Construct	Constraint
Data Source	Data Use	Deliverable	Designation	Document	Document Use	Effect
Equipment	Event	Example	Facility	Format	Function	Hardware
Incentive	Information Use	Knowledge Domain	Lesson	Machine	Measurement	Medium
Message	Method	Milestone	Model	Model Use	Place	Player
Product	Proof	Recommendation	Representation	Requirement	Responsibility	Result
Role	Rule	Scenario	Software Application	Space	Standard	System
System Unit	Target	Test	Tool	Trigger

Table 2. Concepts (51 Concepts in v3.10, last updated July 28, 2016)

II. Attributes

Name	Description	Name	Description
Availability	An integer or string indicating the basic existence or availability of a concept	Location	The coordinates of an object within a physical space
Cost	A monetary value expressed in whole numbers, fractions or decimals	Market	A defined economical boundary
Count	An expression of elemental numbers using integers	Order	An arrangement whether chronological or spatial – not preferential or developmental (refer to Grade)
Description	An explanation expressed using words, phrases and sentences	Proposition	A mutually exclusive distinction between clear choices
Grade	A variables denoting preference or developmental achievement expressed in integers, percentages or text	State	A description of condition whether temporary or permanent
Link	A hypertext connection	Time	An expression of chronology expressed in minutes, second, days, etc…
Language	The language used to define a concept or a relation	Type	A differentiation of genus

Table 3. Attributes (14 Attributes in v3.0, last updated August 16, 2015)

III. Relations

Below is a list of all standard relationship labels (158 as of Aug, 2015) connecting different Concepts:

Abort	Adopt	Aggregate	Affect
Allow	Allow for	Analyse	Append
Approve	Arrange	Assemble	Assess
Analyse	Audit	Authorise	Build
Buy	Capture	Cause	Certify
Check	Choose	Classify	Complete
Collaborate with	Collate	Collect	Commission
Communicate with	Compare	Conduct	Confirm
Construct	Consult	Contact	Contain
Continue	Control	Coordinate	Decrease
Delimit	Deliver	Demolish	Demonstrate
Deselect	Design	Detect	Determine
Describe	Develop	Discover	Divide
Discuss with	Document	Draw	Educate
Empower	Encourage	Enforce	Engage with
Establish	Estimate	Exchange	Explode
Extract	Evaluate	Fabricate	Facilitate
Federate	Follow	Forecast	Function as
Gather	Generate	Guide	Has part
Has resource	Identify	Ignore	Implement
Improve	Incentivise	Increase	Inform
Initiate	Innovate	Integrate	Interchange
Interview	Invent	Involve	Join
Know	Lead	Link to	Locate
Maintain	Make aware	Make	Maintain
Manage	Maximise	Measure	Merge
Minimise	Model	Monitor	Notify
Observe	Operate	Own	Participate in
Perform	Plan	Populate	Prepare
Prescribe	Prioritise	Procure	Produce
Prove	Provide	Provide for	Pull
Push	Qualify	Quantify	Question
Receive	Recommend	Regulate	Reject
Replace	Require	Review	Revise
Run	Sample	Select	Share
Simulate	Size	Start	Stop
Supply	Survey	Test	Track
Train	Transfer	Transform	Transmit
Understand	Update	Use	Validate
Verify	Visualise	Warn	Write

Table 4. Relations (158 Relations in v3.0, last updated August 16, 2015)

IV. Knowledge Sets

Knowledge Sets are higher order Knowledge Objects composed of the other three lower order concepts, relations and attributes.

	Name	Description	Example
1	Knowledge Foundations	A structured view of concepts and their relations. Knowledge Foundations include dictionaries, classifications, taxonomies, models, frameworks and theories	The BIM Ontology, The BIM Framework, Granularity Levels, Organizational Scales…
2	Knowledge Blocks	A self-contained knowledge item used to build larger knowledge structures	A competency item, dictionary item, model use…
3	Knowledge Tools	An interactive view of concepts and their relations intended to assess, assist and educate its users. A tool has modifiable variables leading to varied outputs based on inputs	A calculator, an online tool, a cad software…
4	Knowledge Workflows	A repeatable set of activities conducted as part of a larger process to deliver a measurable outcome	An assessment methodology, a knowledge capture technique, a construction method, a verification routine….
5	Knowledge Views	A delimited self-contained view of multiple concepts and their relations - irrespective of knowledge content format (text, images or graphs) or knowledge content medium (hardcopy or softcopy)	A training manual, journal article, CAD drawing, poster, web page, video, concept map, repertory grid, process map, concept map, flowchart, Gantt chart…

Table 5. Knowledge Sets (4 sets in v3.1, last updated July 28, 2016)

Publication Log - Summary

V.	Date	Description
1.0	18 Oct ‘07	Initial version submitted as part as a research proposal at the University of Newcastle, NSW
1.2	6 Dec ‘08	Published as Table 6 within Paper A2
2.0	13 Dec ‘13	Published as Appendix A of the PhD Thesis
3.0	16 Aug ’15	First published on BIMframework.com
3.01	29 Apr '16	2 new Concepts added, 1 Concept modified
3.02	28 Jun '16	5 new Concepts added
3.03	2 Jul '16	1 Concept modified
3.10	28 Jul' 16	1 Concept added, 1 Knowledge Set renamed
3.11	21 Aug' 16	2 Concepts added
3.12	23 Jan' 2017	Removed the ‘active’ tone from all Relations. Added 1 Concept + 2 Relations. Modified 1 Concept

References

Cottam, H. (1999). Ontologies to Assist Process Oriented Knowledge Acquisition (Draft). Retrieved from http://www.inovexadvancedsolutions.ltd.uk/spede/default.htm

Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? International journal of human-computer studies, 43(5-6), 907-928. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WGR-45NJJDF-K/2/b47f5cb67315c76b60ac39f44e0a2cec

Milton, N. R. (2007a). Knowledge Acquisition in Practice: A Step-by-step Guide: Springer, London.

Milton, N. R. (2007b). Specification for the General Technological Ontology (GTO). http://www.pcpack.co.uk/gto/notes/files/GTO%20Spec%20v4.doc Retrieved from http://www.pcpack.co.uk/gto/notes/files/GTO%20Spec%20v4.doc

Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia-web/ontology101.pdf Retrieved from http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia-web/ontology101.pdf

Shanks, G., Tansley, E., & Weber, R. (2003). Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 85-89. doi:10.1145/944217.944244

Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TYX-3SYXJ6S-G/2/67ea511f5600d90a74999a9fef47ac98

Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003

Succar, B., Sher, W., & Aranda-Mena, G. (2007). A Proposed Framework to Investigate Building Information Modelling Through Knowledge Elicitation and Visual Models. Paper presented at the Australasian Universities Building Education (AUBEA2007), Melbourne, Australia. http://aubea.org.au/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=15&cf=1

Posted at 10:11 PM in Paper A2, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (2)

31. Research Continuum

Jan 06, 2015

Research Continuum v1.1 (partial, showing sample relations | Full Size - 1.1Mb)

The Research Continuum v1.1 represents a network of conceptual and practical deliverables across a number of papers till December 2013 (model to be updated in 2016). The continuum highlights how each paper delivers a number of conceptual constructs which either extend earlier constructs/tools or support the development of new ones. Constructs are hierarchical - frameworks, models, taxonomies, classifications and dictionary terms - yet interconnect through explicit ontological relations. At the bottom of the image are sample Knowledge Tools TL1-TL5 (e.g. TL4 is the online BIM Dictionary) which are dependent on these conceptual constructs.

Updated 19 July 2016: The continuum clarifies how the BIM Maturity Matrix (TL2 - a practical tool introduced in Paper A3 and later released in a number of languages) is dependent on several models (e.g. MD7-MD9), which are in-turn ontologically-connected to a number of taxonomies, classifications and dictionary terms.

Posted at 10:06 AM in Conceptual Model, Infographic, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (2)

29. Research Path

Sep 10, 2014

Full Size Image (Research Path v1.3 - 378 kb)

The Research Path identifies the major milestones along four research sub-paths: literature review, research methodology, conceptual development and data collection. This visual knowledge model (VKM) also identifies a number of ongoing research activities pursuant to each research sub-path.

Note: the importance of a clearly defined research path cannot be understated. However, allowing oneself to diverge into inter-connected sub-paths (a network of tunnels dug underneath the main topic) is an excellent mechanism for knowledge exploration and discovery.

Posted at 09:35 AM in Conceptual Model, Methodology, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (0)

28. Research Timeline

Aug 27, 2014

Full Size Image (Study Timeline v1.0 - 301kb)

The Research Timeline (previously Study Timeline v1.0) is a visual summary of research activities conducted starting June 2005. The graph references main literature reviews, data collection efforts, published papers, relative citations and compiled full-paper downloads (Source 1 + Source 2) till mid December 2013.

Posted at 12:47 PM in Infographic, Methodology, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (0)

27. Conceptual Hierarchy

Jul 29, 2014

Conceptual Hierarchy Current Version, full-size image (older version v1.0)

The BIM framework is composed of several interrelated conceptual constructs: models, taxonomies, classifications and dictionaries. A common conceptual ontology connects all conceptual constructs and makes explicit the relationship between them. Below is a generic description of the depicted conceptual parts:

Frameworks show “the gestalt, the structure, the anatomy or the morphology of a field of knowledge or the links between seemingly disparate fields or sub-disciplines” (Reisman, 1994, p. 92).

Models (conceptual models) are simplified representations and abstractions of the “enormous richness of this world” (Ritter, 2010, p. 360) (Lave & March, 1993).

Taxonomies are an efficient and effective way to organize and consolidate knowledge (Reisman, 2005) (Hedden, 2010). A well-structured taxonomy allows “the meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24).

Classifications are the “meaningful clustering of experience” (Kwasnik, 1999, p. 24) and “lies at the heart of every scientific field” (Lohse, Biolsi, Walker, & Rueter, 1994, p. 36). Classification is also a heuristic tool useful during the formative stages of discovery, analysis and theorizing (Davies, 1989).

Dictionaries constitute a web of meaning (Cristea, 2004) connecting terms to each other and to other knowledge bases.

Posted at 07:05 PM in Conceptual Model, Framework, Model, Taxonomy, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (0)

25. Knowledge Content Taxonomy

Jul 15, 2014

Updated April 11, 2016: The Knowledge Content Taxonomy (KCT) - previously referred to as the BIM Knowledge Content (BKC) taxonomy - includes several classifications. The main one identifies three knowledge content clusters (guides, protocols and mandates) which are subdivided into eighteen knowledge content labels (e.g. report, manual, and contract). As described in the Noteworthy BIM Publications image, the KCT and its classifications are derived from the explicit ontological structures of the BIM Framework (Succar, 2009 - Paper A2) (Succar, 2013 - Thesis). KCT labels and clusters classify NBPs according to their actual knowledge content rather than according to each publication’s title or its specific – and sometime conflicting - use of terminology. A succinct definition of the three KCT clusters is provided below:

Guides: documents which are descriptive and optional. Guides clarify goals, report on surveys/accomplishments or simplify complex topics. Guides do not provide detailed steps to follow to attain a goal or complete an activity;
Protocols: documents which are prescriptive and optional. Protocols provide detailed steps or conditions to reach a goal or deliver a measureable outcome. While documents within this cluster are prescriptive, they are optional to follow unless dictated within a Mandate (see next cluster); and
Mandates: documents which are prescriptive and dictated by an authority. Mandates identify what should be delivered and – in some cases – how, when and by whom it should be delivered.

When used to assess NBPs, the three KCT clusters would inform country-scale BIM maturity assessment. For example, a country, with all its NBPs pertaining to a single cluster (e.g. guides – descriptive and optional), would arguably face different implementation challenges to those faced by a country with its NBPs distributed across guides, protocols and mandates.

Updated Feb 14, 2018 (removed an example): below is the BIM Knowledge Content taxonomy (v1.35): 18 content labels in three content clusters as republished in Paper B1:

Content CLUSTER	Label CODE	Content LABEL	Label DEFINITION - BIM specific
Guides	G1	Best Practice	Operational methods arising from experience; promoted as advantageous; and replicable by other individuals, organizations and teams. This label applies to publications which list unambiguous and detailed recommendations, and which if applied as recommended, generate similar advantageous outcomes
	G2	Case Study	Summary and analysis (descriptive or explanatory) of projects and organizational efforts. This label applies to both research and industry publications which share lessons learned by others, and cover BIM deliverables, workflows, requirements, challenges and opportunities
	G3	Framework or Model	Theoretical structures explaining or simplifying complex aspects of a domain by identifying meaningful concepts and their relationships
	G4	Guideline	Compilation of several BIM content types with the aim of providing guidance to individuals, teams or organizations. Guides typically provide insight into a complex topic (e.g. BIM Implementation Guide or Facility Handover Guide). Guides typically focus on knowledge-intensive topics, while Manuals (a complementary label) focus on skill-intensive ones. Due to the generic nature of this label, it should not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with other labels
	G5	Learning Module or Material	All types of analogue and digital media (e.g. printed manual or online videos) which deliver conceptual or practical insight intended/suitable for education, training or professional development within industry or academia
	G6	Report	Compilation or summary of results arising from an assessment, calculation or review process (e.g. BIM capability report or profitability statement)
	G7	Strategy or Vision	Articulation of vision, mission and long-term goals. This label applies to publications which identify a long-term strategy (and possibly middle-term goals/milestones) but without identifying the resources required and detailed steps needed to fulfill the strategy
	G8	Taxonomy or Classification	Classification covering roles, types, levels, elements and other structured concepts. This label applies to publications which introduce classifications of five or more items within a structured list; and which have a clear use in assessment, learning or implementation (e.g. construction elements, BIM roles, data exchange types or levels of detail)
Protocols	P1	Metric or Benchmark	Tools and criteria suitable for establishing levels of performance of systems, projects, individuals, teams, organizations and other organizational units[1]. This label applies to publications which include tools or explicit metrics/indicators for establishing usability, profitability, productivity, competency, capability or similar
	P2	Manual	A structured document which is intended to clarify the steps needed to perform a measureable activity or deliver a measureable outcome (e.g. BIM Training Manual). Manuals typically focus on skill-intensive topics, while Guides (a complementary label) typically focus on skill-intensive ones. Due to the generic nature of this label, it should not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with other labels
	P3	Plan	A document describing activities to be performed, resources to be used and milestones to be reached within a defined timeframe. This label applies to publications describing – in adequate detail - how a specific strategy can be fulfilled or a pre-defined goal can be reached (e.g. a BIM Implementation Plan detailing how to fulfill a BIM Capability Strategy)
	P4	Procedure or workflow	Structured information covering successive steps needed to fulfill an operational, rather than strategic, requirement. A documented Procedure includes the small steps needed to deliver, if executed by a competent individual, a pre-defined and desired outcome. A Workflow identifies major successive activities to be performed and decision gates to pass-through towards reaching a delivery milestone or fulfilling a project/organizational objective
	P5	Protocol or Convention	Agreed or customary method of product/service development or delivery which are not by themselves contractually binding (e.g. keeping minutes of meetings, how to name files and frequency of exchanging models)
	P6	Specification or Prescription	A set of criteria used to define or judge the quality of products (e.g. object dimensions or data richness) and services (e.g. timeliness). Specifications may or may not be a Standard (a separate label)
	P7	Standard or Code	Detailed set of product/service descriptions (prescriptive or performance-based) acting as a reference to be measured against. This label typically denotes a set of specifications (a separate label) which are authoritative and test-proven (e.g. barrier-free or accessibility standards)
Mandates	M1	Contract or Agreement	Legally-binding document and its subparts – including contractual additions, amendments and disclaimers. This label applies to contracts and clauses, not to publications describing or promoting them (e.g. the label applies to AIA Documents E203, G201 and G202 but not to the AIA IPD guide)
	M2	Program or Schedule	A document associating one or more classification to time and/or location. For example, a BIM competency improvement program is a document linking BIM competencies, BIM roles (and possibly other classifications) to a timeline or target dates
	M3	Requirement, Rule or Policy	Expectation or qualification mandated by clients, regulatory authorities or similar parties. This label applies to publications with explicit identification of requirements to be met (e.g. organizational capability or previous experience) or products/services to be delivered (e.g. a tender/bid document)

[1] There are 12 organizational units, each with their own unique metrics (refer to Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix (Succar, 2010).

Posted at 11:05 AM in Paper B1, Paper B2, Taxonomy, Thesis | Permalink | Comments (0)

Search

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Follow @BIMeInitiative

Affiliated Websites

BIMe Initiative
The BIMe Initiative is not-for-profit effort based on the BIM Excellence approach. The BIMe Initiative aims to improve the performance of individuals, organisations and project teams in the construction industry through (a) developing a modular language for information exchange; (b) Generating reliable industry-wide competency benchmarks; (c) promoting competency-based learning; and (e) developing intuitive tools and templates for all to freely use.
BIM Dictionary
The BIM Dictionary, an online resource for all to freely use. The dictionary hosts terms specific to digital transformation in the construction industry. It hosts hundreds of terms with their descriptions, synonyms and abbreviations.
BIM ThinkSpace
BIM ThinkSpace is one of the longest running blogs (first post was in Oct 2005) covering Building Information Modelling from an 'informed practitioners' perspective. It posts infrequently yet shares thought-provoking topics and valuable contributions from international guest authors.
BIM Framework
A blog for researchers interested in adapting the BIM Framework (Succar, 2009). Each post focuses on one conceptual part and is linked to peer-reviewed papers.
BIM Excellence
BIM Excellence (BIMe) is a research-based method to improve the BIM competency of individuals, organizations and project teams. BIMe uses specialised online tools to compare current abilities against project/client requirements and industry benchmarks.
ChangeAgents AEC
ChangeAgents AEC is a BIM performance assessment and improvement consultancy operating since 2004 out of Melbourne, Australia.