INTEROPERABILITY WORKSTREAM MEETING 3, 30-10-2024
PAUL OAKLEY Karim presented, both at the interoperability group and the main forum, the semantic triangle of symbols, references and reference. And then over the top of it we were talking about you’ve got the digital records workstream and the business case workstream and actually this group is just linking the two things together. So, last week we had a leader’s group meeting between the various groups looking at what’s being done because we did quite a lot on the Miro board and things like that, but one of the things we felt was we weren’t getting enough input from asset managers about what digital records do you receive. Really we wanted the digital records team to be telling us what they want and the business cases basically inputting into that.
What was agreed was that those groups would go away and provide further information for us in terms of what we need to take forward and identify the specific work items that we need to get on with. So, that was the initial section of work, but in terms of the timings of the meetings obviously we are now waiting for them to come back with what they think their particular requirements are before we can then start to get on with the digital records thing etc that they are asking for. (shares screen). This was what we went through last time and one particular thing, Phil, who put up unique identifiers, I’ve just jumped out of a B555 which meeting which was looking at standards and the EU is defining its requirements for the unique identifiers within driving standards as well. I also sit of the ISO Committee on construction documentation and again, unique identifiers are one of the key things there.
So what I was proposing in this meeting, while we’re waiting for the others to come back on their digital records and what we need to be looking at in terms of purposes there, was to dip into unique identifiers and see what we can…initially I’ll start off because a lot of the training and delivery stuff that I did on that and the ISOs and the standards that I sit on deal with a lot of those sorts of things. So, just to make people aware about what’s going on. One of the presentations that was given early on on the CDB on digital twins etc. gave examples of transport networks, how they are dealing with digital twins within transport. But then when you start looking at things like if you want to get a flight to somewhere every airport has a unique ID three-letter code which you use which identifies them. Every airline has a unique code, every flight has a specific number etc.
So, all of those unique identifiers mean that you can basically track back exactly what’s happened, the same on buses. Bus route, each bus, each bus stop, they all have unique identifiers. Well; actually, I then started looking it up and there is an ISO standard for the transport sector which deals with that, looks at different levels how they’re done, private and public, throughout the lifecycle. So, within transport the unique identifiers were the key things that basically got the things going and I think that again, they are fundamental to the digital twin, golden thread type of approach that we’re looking at in terms of how we deal with all of these sorts of things. Now, within our area, BIM etc, you’ve got the 19650 series so again, some of the requirements for document identifiers are covered in that. ISO 72000 deals with, it was based on CAD but title blocks, and that has a lot of unique identifier requirements identified within that.
IFC 16739 again had the property sets of those requirements with particular unique identifiers and COBie…1192-4 also has unique requirements within that. You then get into things like the ISO series like the 4157 which has 3 parts which looks at basically buildings, generally looking at levels in terms of unique identifiers for levels, part of the buildings, room names and room identifiers. So, there is 3 different parts to that standard which covers different elements there. When we look at the trajectionals? 7mins 40secs of BS 1192 file naming conventions, unique identifiers dealt with a project number, an originator and then the following fields have changed from various variations of things in terms of volume systems, levels, locations, document type, discipline, possibly a classification which is an optional field and then the unique number. So all of these basically made up the unique identifier for the file under BS1192, but actually the originator could be a standard code that is used for other things throughout the documentation and the project number is another level number, again it can come out of the previously mentioned standard etc.
So, all of these things can basically be used as standard ways of dealing with identifiers to build things up. I won’t go into details on container types. When you start looking at these things you then need to get into the particular requirements of each identifier. So how are you going to deal with it? What you do is separators between fields, what characters are out where its numbers, it’s alphanumeric, just texts etc., whether using GUIDs or these sorts of things which come into play on it. One of the things within the original BS, the trouble is we move from BS to ISO and then ISO we’ve had multiple local annexes and implementations of those. So, things like the Irish standard within their national annex dealt with a separate field for either sub-projects or project stage. So, basically the project number and then they have a separate field to identify what the particular stage of the project is it, or a particular sub-section of that.
Originators, these are sort of things, whilst I was at BRE it was one of the things I was trying to push is why don’t we just have a UK dictionary of companies and a standard code that they could all use. So basically with that 3-letter code everybody would know what companies are involved with any documentation or anything else that drives those sorts of things. Volumes, again, what it’s used as, whether it’s a volume zone spatial organisation, it’s how we structure those, but again unique identifiers of those can then be dealt with by different principles in terms of how you want to deal with those. So, on a lot of projects actually having these unique IDs relating to volumes and zones is custom to that. And then again on levels, how you deal with that for the storeys or a particular code again is different. So basically there is a storey level and there’s a storey ID and there’s a level ID included in the ISO to deal with that.
Again, just unique IDs and file types and other things that comes in and then the discipline roles which generally follow through. Now, a lot of people confuse identifiers with classification and they are not the same thing. IDs need to be unique whereas classifications generally will not be unique. And then numbers, well I’ll deal with those in those. The problem that we have is that Hong Kong have a variation, Chile has a variation, we had the original BS, we had the UK version of the 2018 then it was updated in 2020. Again, under different things put out to the CDE group, put out another field. So, when you start looking at these unique identifiers there are multiple ways of doing it which is causing absolute chaos out there at the moment, so that stuff needs to be resolved. A lot of the work that I did originally, I was involved in doing the ? 12mins 55secs community group writing the initial UK BIM object standards, they were done for Autodesk.
I also did the Revit standards, I was involved in the 8541 series with other people on those, also a new standard 22014 which again deals with BIM objects, but across the world masterpec, NBS, bim objects, the commercial ones all have their own variations and they all deal with these unique identifiers in a slightly different way. And now we have the open BIM standard again, which does it differently. So, when we start talking about unique IDs on objects again you come down to how you deal with things like representation. So you can have an object, this door could be dealt with at different levels of detail. Within something like Revit that’s fine because you can basically have one object which holds the coarse, medium and the high level of detail. And then things like the glazing, the ironmongery and all of those sorts of things can be added to the object, so basically what makes it up. But the issue is when if you’re using other solutions they basically need to swap the objects out to deal with the different types of representation. So, if you want more detailed objects you need to have a different object than if you’re going to have a coarse object.
So, the way that it deals with the level of information, graphical representation etc, is different within different solutions and so as far as it does with that. That’s just an example of what it looks like in the 3D type view, different levels of graphical representation. Then when you get into doing things like trying to deal with systems, again it’s how you can basically identify objects with set attributes to link them to particular systems and circuits because you need to know that the assets of particular types are on a very specific circuit, so if you’ve got to deal with maintenance etc you can deal with these. So things like the object name, the instance ID, the type ID, the system ID and the circuit ID are all crucial to how this stuff works.
I won’t go too far into the nomenclature of those, but generally you’re looking at source type and sub type and those alternate ways, everybody can deal with the things there, and again it depends on how much attributes you want to put into things like a name to create that unique identifier. And again, different variations from different manufacturers in terms of how they deal with that stuff. I mentioned the ISOs…room name, this drawing here picks up the sort of things where basically each room has a unique ID in terms of its level, GO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, very simple, then the internal doors start with an ID level in the room and then a particular number. Windows generally dealt with round the outside.
RICHARD Can I just ask you something, you’ve got the unique identifier for the room, you’ve got the unique identifier for the product, is there a number that says that product in that room?
PAUL OAKLEY The instance, that is the instance of this door. Actually, looking at these, all of those doors are probably the same type. The drawing is not giving you the type information, it’s just giving you the instance information. But then when you looked at something like COBie, or you’re looking at the door schedule, it would then refer to the type and the type would then be linked to the manufacturer and the model number. So, this is generally showing instance IDs, instances, as opposed to the type IDs which would then be dealt with at the manufacturers particular level.
RICHARD When you say instance, you mean it’s a door.
PAUL OAKLEY No, I mean this door in this particular location.
RICHARD Oh right, so it is where it is, it puts the location on it.
PAUL OAKLEY Yes, basically that is saying that it’s that door there is actually an ID GO3, so it’s an internal door as ID, that’s it’s reference GO3 is that room, door number 1, door number 2.
ANDREW WARING The solution that we have to this up in Scotland generally is we would have an individual identifier for the door that’s not related to the room, mostly because that number might change at the end of the job based on the occupier. So we have a unique identifier for the door that’s just a unique identifier regardless of where it is. And then if we need to we use the COBie schema or schedule to effectively map to an asset identifier which may be used as a separate thing to the asset name in that sense.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, there are multiple ways of doing things, this is showing how it complies with the ISO which sets these things out. But I think every architect would do it completely differently.
RICHARD That’s not helpful, is it?
PAUL OAKLEY No, which is why the whole sort of thing that Phil’s brought up about sorting out unique identifiers consistent ways of doing it and things like that is absolutely crucial.
ANDREW WARING I think the recommendation I would say is always try and not build in information into the name where it comes from something else. So, the location of the door is within the COBie dot space, information or within schedules the type of the information is within the type name. So, building in any of that information into just one name convention isn’t ideal, you should refer to others and then generate that if needed.
PAUL OAKLEY If you’re using things like parameter-based naming, so basically if the room number updates then the door number automatically updates with it.
PIERRE VENTER One of the things I’m going to say is KISS, keep it as simple as possible. A couple of jobs that I’ve been working on recently in the Middle East is the problem that you’ve got AIA, RIBA, South African, Irish, Italian etc. And what we really do need is one standard for the whole construction industry around the world, and I agree with Andrew. The point is you can get these things to automatically calculate and all sorts of things, but we need to actually have an understanding of the documentation system because while you can do it in the Revit model, how does it cascade down to every other object for which it will have some reference?
And I think it really is important in the standard just to have one single reference which identifies it and it can be grouped and aggregated according to that room, let's say GO3. I’m just saying let’s try and keep it as simple as possible because otherwise it just becomes more complex and then people don’t follow it because they’ll find another way of doing it easier.
PAUL OAKLEY I sit on the committee which is responsible for this standard ISO, but you notice the date of that standard is 1999 because nobody can agree globally how to take this forward and to resolve it. And there are so many discussions about people put proposals which keep getting shot down because nobody…the Europeans, UK, the Americans, Chinese, everybody has a different way of looking at this and a solution to it. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t define amongst our group what we think is right for the UK in terms of what asset managers in the UK would want for that to be taken forward.
ADRIAN MOKUS Is there from the end user point of view, let’s say facility manager, any limitation or specification between different CAFM systems that require a certain format for this asset and identifier? Or is it literally it doesn’t matter what format is it. Νomenclature, for them it’s just a chunk of information that they use? Or do these systems have certain requirement that needs to be this format, or 16-digits or whatever?
PIERRE VENTER Adrian, the point is that if you were using IBM TRIRIGA or Maximo, they each have different requirements and there is that issue, that if it’s structured properly it just becomes consistent for everybody and then that’s easy to manage. And whether that was just a picture that says this is how it’s structured, as long as the name or the ID is not including all of the different lengths where you have to pass it out in order to understand where it is. That’s one message that I think would be sensible.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, obviously…one of the other things is just using GUIDs, things like IFC, all that does is that basically allocates a GUID against a type and an instance. So, whereas here you’ve got a nomenclature which follows an agreed pattern a GUID is just a randomised set of characters which is pretty much guaranteed to be unique for each object. These can just be different attributes, so you can have an ID based on the ISO standard and have a different ID as well for other purposes and have a GUID. You don’t need to be constrained, it’s just the more the management of those.
PHIL THOMPSON Obviously this is music to my ears because I’ve been banging the drum about this now for probably close the 5 years, basically because of my experience in the supply chain. But I think we’ve got to recognise that in all of these environments we quite often get carried away into the geometry side, the BIM element, the modelling. And there is a danger that we’ll lose people on the journey. I think it’s important that we all recognise we’ve got to dumb this down, the lowest common denominator in the industry about moving information around is products moving around. So products move around from a manufacturer to a supply chain through a logistics model onto site, they’re installed and then they may be removed during demolition etc.
The whole kind of end to end process the products are physically moving and we need a digital representation of those products moving. And that’s why a unique identifier that the manufacturer signs and then passes along the supply chain like a baton is important to recognise. When that information is then passed into a design phase, into a model, the geometry says yeah, a lot of things that you’re talking about here are very relevant, but unless you get the foundations going in place first, like a unique identifier, and it’s no secret that I’ve talked about the adoption of the GTIM which is GS1 standards. But they also have as well as a unique identifier, they have batching and serialisation, so they cover elements that you’re talking about here. But it’s really, really important that everybody thinks about the basics here, don’t get carried away with all of the techy stuff. Moving products around this industry is fundamentally flawed at the moment.
PAUL OAKLEY We’ll come onto that in a sec because you’re talking about the next bit. Each instance of everything needs a unique ID so you know that this thing is in this particular space. You then get into types which generally, you’ll have a design type, this is the architect’s door and then he’s basically put that together as an assembly. And then that has a whole series of products and those products again, also unique identifiers. I was involved at BRE with something called tag-and-track, which looked at the whole process of how stuff could go through either the requirements for specification passed the products or products being delivered to site from the manufacturer. It was mainly looking at the more expensive type of things, but then when we started looking at things like plasterboard which then suddenly gets cut up and how you deal with that sort of stuff, it becomes an absolute3 nightmare. Nut the basic principles should be the same.
PHIL THOMPSON Yeah, you’re right, this product is complex but it’s a good example, I know George has used it many times because it’s a complete product that’s made up of a number of elements. But if you break that down and look at the door closer in there, at the moment that door closer can be gone and purchased from one of the big retailers, either online or in-person, and it will have a barcode on it that can be used. That’s got to be integrated into this whole conversation because somebody at some point will go and replace that through failure and they have the potential to go and use a system to not just procure that, but to manage that transaction, to validate it that it’s been installed and past the client.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, so that’s where instead of thinking things about these as objects as such we need to start thinking about these as assemblies and then within the assemblies we start listing those requirements. And then things like the serial numbers that make the whole thing up all need to be provided as a complete package of things.
PIERRE VENTER something that I’m very strong about is that the elements, components and assemblies, as we assemble things, basically like a door set is the door set contains the list of all of those individual components with their unique name at the design stage. When it goes to the construction stage the products come into it, unless the products are pre-defined, saying this is the door that will be handled. And what it is, in my mind change is inevitable through the whole design and construction process, but the best way that I can say is that this is a phone and it says that it’s an iPhone. One single reference with the list of all of those sub elements is kept and maintained elsewhere, that’s that GS1 kind of mind set that in fact you’ve got a GTIM then you’ve got the GIN and the GPIN and all of the other different numbers.
But what it means is that to the person working in the field or in the office they only have one number that they need to worry about because the database will manage the sub-information separately that would be available on demand. And maybe I’m seeing things that the documentation should try and contain a step so that there is a single reference which can then be expanded when it’s required and it’s all embedded in the same object. So, I’m a little bit concerned when we have too many numbers and too many cryptic names, in one sense the GUID makes a lot of sense because it’s agnostic, it’s just a number. And if I were to take it to one further level, the QR code would have all of that data because the database manages it and maybe that is what I’m trying to get to is that the technology is there to enable us to actually be able to read on demand what is where at the time.
PAUL OAKLEY On that, a QR code is one method of reading data. You’ve got a unique identifier…we looked at something like digital dust which was basically they had a way of scanning that, it gave you the equivalent of a QR code, but it gave you a unique ID, put it to web-based technologies to bring the stuff back. We’ve talked about assemblies from a product side, this is actual the things that are put in there, but also is similar from a design point of view in terms of having the requirements as a similar thing. So you’ve got the requirement for this assembly and then all of the things that make up that assembly has a series of requirements. So we get down to that closer, the requirements for that, and then they had been met by the product that was installed and then from that assembly the actual closer that was installed and the product data there.
PIERRE VENTER Just to come in there, the first thing, during the design phase essentially every object that you’ve got in the building meets a set of performance criteria. In other words, I’m sitting here I’ve got a window here, it says it should be .18 should be the U value. The issue behind this, at a certain point if it was design built we’ve handed over information to the contractor. Now we need to validate coming backwards that they have delivered something that meets the performance requirements of the original object that was defined at the beginning, gone through the design and handed over, so that product can now be compared to make sure that the two meet the requirement. What would be the golden thread, or would be the way that we actually need to deliver something.
And I think there’s the really important part is that the door set is actually quite a good term because that whole assembly is a door set. If you had it on a piece of paper it’s got everything that it’s required and it will just say, this is a lock and latch set of a certain type, a certain security level etc, all done. And it’s allowing us that kind of thing where from a classification or compliance process the IDS IFC system, that rule checker, for me is really, really important because when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of elements you can’t do all of the checking that’s necessary. So that I understand why the ideas are really important, plus that other data all properly linked.
PAUL OAKLEY What you’ve talked about, as an architect who used to work on traditional projects, brilliant because basically it was equal or approved. Then we move into the design built scenario where actually I specified the things and there was nothing on me to come back to check that what was actually put onsite met the requirements that I’d defined. That was all in the hands of the main contractors, because actually they would take on the design responsibility. But now we’re talking about this golden thread type of approach what you’re saying is absolutely crucial to how we’re going to do that validation between the definition of the requirements and whether the products have actually met those requirements and therefore who’s actually taking on the design responsibility for those particular things.
Again, that’s one of the sort of things, it’s separating out the product side of it from the design side of stuff which IFC and things like that tend to deal with. We’ve talked again systems, one of the things that people tend to forget, particularly circuits, is one of the particular areas that needs to be dealt with. We’ve talked about objects, instances, types, systems etc. I won’t go into classification, but again, classifications are separate so it’s a separate identifier. The big things on types is instances always have a spacial location, so they have an ID and they have an XYZ which sets out exactly where they are, where types have not actually been put in anywhere. So, this is the sort of stuff that we talked about in terms of the door set, then you’ve got a unique ID there, but basically that’s made up of the opening, the frame, the architraves, the panels, the ironmongery etc, all of these components which we’ve talked about.
So, each of these, or even an ironmongery set has an ID and then the components that make up all those IDs to do with that. There’s also identification through things like layers and layer standards etc, we won’t get into that. And then we get into COBie. So, objects through the project numbers have unique IDs, but all of the stuff that happened through PAS 1192 Part 3 into ISO 19650 Part 3, nothing is actually dealing with a facility ID. So, from an asset management point of view you may have multiple projects being undertaken on a single facility, or you may have projects which are dealing with multiple facilities. So again, it’s how you deal with the unique ID of a facility and how do you pass the information back through from projects to facilities to keep that golden thread of facilities.
PIERRE VENTER Paul, the facility there, is that not if we deal with a complex and a spatial volume? In other words, just like the space, just like the room the facility itself becomes the grouping element.
PAUL OAKLEY Yes.
PIERRE VENTER So, it should have a number that says there’s the unique identifier, whatever the description is.
ANDREW WARING Does the COBie schema and the IFC schema not include external facility identifier?
PAUL OAKLEY But that tends to be done at a project level, not at an asset management level.
ANDREW WARING Yeah, so it would be the onus of the client to specify what their facility name is and how that’s consistent across all of their projects.
PAUL OAKLEY Yes, and that’s what I’m saying is that’s sort of the key things that actually from an asset management point of view clients should be identifying what are those unique IDs for their estates, their facilities etc, and then maybe particular buildings within that facility which then is feeding in to how it’s then going to dealt with within the project scenario.
ANDREW WARING The DIO has a pretty extensive way of doing that that’s quite robust called Spec 24. It breaks it down not just by site and facility but it also has various areas within a larger site etc, so for master plans it would be quite useful. It might be worth exploring that as a standard. I don’t know if it’s publicly available, but it’s the DIO Spec 24.
PIERRE VENTER Andrew, just a question there, Dimitrios just said about the IFC parameters, the IFC space, the IFC bits and pieces, their various different parameters which already are provided there. It’s just the picture of the data that’s going in there, how that gets structured.
ANDREW WARING Personally I think it would be the same as a door and any kind of object, you’d have a unique identifier for each level of definition, I don’t mean LD. So, at a site level there is a unique identifier, at a building level a unique identifier, and if you need to amalgamate those for whatever purposes you can concatenate them or put them in a format. So, it’s about identifying where the uniqueness is and applying a unique identifier at that level. So, when you look at the DIO Spec 24 stuff they have a unique identifier for the building type, the building instance, the area of the site, the site itself, the project, the contract, all of that kind of stuff for separate identifiable elements.
And then depending on where you’re looking at the drawing, where you’re looking at the context of that, it depends how far that drills down into. So, if you were providing a functional breakdown based on the whole site then for example you’d only use the code that is applicable to the site level if you’re looking at t particular space within the site, and that would break it down for others. It’s the same idea as doors and everything, you just provide the unique identifier the level appropriate and then concatenate them where you need to.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, so things like document identifiers which under 19650 the BSEN version uses a national annex and then basically that starts with a project number. But the obviously at handover you’ve got the information that’s going to go from projects into asset management.
ANDREW WARING Yeah, you can use the functional breakdown for that, generally I’ve found that people use the project idea for the contract number for that particular contract with a main contractor. But the other stuff, functional breakdown, spatial breakdown, all of that stuff can be concatenations of any number of things which are defined at an organisational level. So it can then be pulled out to be used to point those documents to particular points on their CAFM. Effectively, in terms of what the ISO actually says what’s in those fields it can be anything and I think that’s kind of the point, if we use the hierarchy of breaking things down by site, building, project, space, all of that kind of stuff and make sure that we apply that at a separate level. Then you can put anything you want in the functional breakdown, in the spatial breakdown as a combination of those things to allow you to push them out.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, the sort of stuff that I’m talking about is the ground floor plan of a building. You’ve got an existing asset and it has a ground floor plan. So, each project would have a project ID and a ground floor plan, but the asset to start off with would need an asset ground floor plan which then gets fed in. So you may have three projects going on in that, project 1, project 2, project 3. So basically it’s what’s the thinking between how do we deal from the information leaving out of the asset management solution into the projects and then how does it feedback at the end of the projects.
ANDREW WARING So the project ID is specific to the intervention your’e doing the contract that you’re engaging with, but the functional breakdown and the spatial breakdown can be based on the actual building itself. So if it is an existing building, say Building 47, the spatial breakdown for this project and seven other projects intervening in that building will still be 47. It’s the project ID that then defines a different contract for that, but the actual spatial breakdown of that is based on an amalgamation of maybe the building itself, the site, the context etc.
PAUL OAKLEY Have you got any examples of how that’s been used in practice?
ANDREW WARING I don’t know if I can share it because it is DIO.
PAUL OAKLEY Can you put together a little example?
ANDREW WARING Yeah, I’ll pull it out into the chat…
PAUL OAKLEY Obviously you can add it in later on. I think these are the sorts of things that, this sort of discussion in terms of this stuff is crucial because we’re identifying lots of the ID issues that are going on.
PIERRE VENTER Paul, a quick question. If we considered all of the objects in a project as having a location and are in their coarsest form a mass, whatever the particular form of that might be, cube, rectangle, triangle, whatever. That for me makes the most sense because every single object knows where it is in the space, they can all be grouped and managed according to their coordinate because the fence of the complex or the facility can then be the bounds that controls that number. In other words, a very much more digital side. But it means that we don’t start confusing it’s a floor plan as a view, and I like the idea of the Revit using a view. So, a floor plan, reflected ceiling plan, section, whatever. But in 3D it definitely has a much more dynamic capability, just like the assembly of that doors that door itself, all of the different components that go together. I’m just thinking of how something could actually be put together so that there is a group of a subgroup and the door set being the overall master group for a project.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, trying to use that door as an example as an assembly is one thing. When you’re talking about geospatial generally you’ve got component type things which have an insertion point, then you’ll get linear things, so something like a wall is generally identified as a linear start point and an end point and then a curve, depending on whether that’s straight or not. And then you’ll get facial based stuff which generally has four or multiple for getting into note based stuff. So those are the ways that things are generally described on the things and some of that can start getting quite complicated which is where the IFC schema starts struggling in terms of that sort of stuff. But the basic principles can be dealt with that way. So that was the end of the stuff that i’d come up to, anymore discussion questions on the things that we’ve covered?
PHIL THOMPSON Where do we go from here?
PAUL OAKLEY I think actually just trying to put, I think we got the Ai thing so basically that will record all of the things that we’ve said so we’ll get a transcript of what we’ve talked about. From that I think we can start putting out a group of findings of things to at least start putting something together as an initial document of these are the sort of things that we think should happen on a unique identifiers.
RICHARD Next week everybody will get a video link of this meeting and a highpoints document that we put together for each meeting.
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, I think it’s one of the things we can then look at as a discussion is that something we put out as a discussion paper on these are the things that we think are important relating to asset management.
PIERRE VENTER Just a question, on a particular building type, and the case that I’m going to use is a mall, one of the issues is the mechanism by which you manage the space is really important because you might have a series of demises that are in a row and three of them get aggregated. And what I’m looking at, what is the method that might be used to renumber the three that get aggregated into one because at some point they might be unpicked and remade into three again. And that’s just as a guideline because it was a problem in that particular building type because of the nature, in the retail sphere, of how quickly it changed.
PAUL OAKLEY Or vice versa where one space gets split into three. I need to have a chat with George because somebody I helped several years ago that George knows that basically was doing that, I can’t even remember which sector it was in. And we helped write a paper on that for them and put some guidelines on that, I need to try and go back and find out what that was which covered these sorts of things. You’re right, it’s an area that needs to be picked up, how you deal with that whole change management, these sorts of things. And even the other thing is where there are particular clients have particular nomenclature on identifiers that they want. The mistake that a lot of people do is delete all of the existing identifiers instead of basically adding an extra attribute to cover the new, so you can actually use both sets for a period of time at least. So again, how that whole change mechanism thing comes into place is something that we need to discuss, it needs to be included.
PIERRE VENTER Can I say my final departure point would be if I bought a Boeing aircraft, the one thing I don’t buy is the aircraft, I actually buy the logbook and the log of maintenance and replacement, so hence the golden thread. And it’s really important, you’ve just made a statement that if we had a number but the client chooses to have another number do we add a number or replace it? In my opinion we allow them to have their new number because the original number relates to every single previous step to that point and so it becomes costs in situ. In that way we’re not ever going to have a problem because we can always find exactly where it was. And the reference that they’re going to use, that can adjust as is required.
PAUL OAKLEY Agreed, yeah.
PHIL THOMPSON I’m still a little confused as to the direction of travel and the outputs because at the moment some good conversation and obviously we’ve got the Miro board, but there doesn’t seem to be any kind of plan, it’s a bit of a scatter-gun approach. So, what is the ultimate goal of this group to produce?
PAUL OAKLEY What we’re now looking at is getting feedback from the other two groups in terms of the digital records group actually telling us what digital records that they are interested in and then we can then look at the interoperability requirements for those, particularly for the business case needs. But I felt this was one particular area where we could get on with initially start putting something together relating to identifiers without any input from them and then hopefully, by the next meeting, we should get an input in terms of these are the key things for the digital records that they want us to look at.
PHIL THOMPSON OK, a lot of the stuff on the Miro board, there is a lot of brain dumping, but again, are we going to organise that into a more visual structure?
PAUL OAKLEY Yeah, we will do. I was hoping to get more stuff from them to feed into that, so we will expand that Miro board on. WE’ve just basically put that on hold for this month and then hopefully we’ll get other stuff and we can build on that.
PHIL THOMPSON OK. Do we have enough cover in this group that we’re seeking the guidance from people in different sectors? I don’t know everyone’s background, but do we have somebody from a logistics organisation?Somebody who has worked in the supply chain, maybe somebody who has got a CIBS? 54mins 49secs qualification. There’s a whole range of different skill sets in construction, is this group mainly made up of kind of people who are focused on modelling, BIM information? Traditional BIM I’m referring to, not the new.
RICHARD There’s a good mix of people and if somebody wants to sit down and say who you want then we can try and get them.
PHIL THOMPSON I don’t have anyone in mind at the moment…
RICHARD Not necessarily people, I mean in terms of roles. If there’s any particular roles that you think are really important, tell us and we’ll try and recruit them.
PHIL THOMPSON Do we have a matrix of everyone who attends this and the inputs and their backgrounds so we know where that input is swayed from?
RICHARD We can send out a list of all of the people signed up for this group, their company and their role.
PHIL THOMPSON Yeah, I think it would be useful because then you could say right, OK, 95% of the people are all BIM engineers. Well, that’s not a true representation of the industry.
RICHARD No, absolutely, Jiss will do that straight after the meeting and then if you can get back to us and say we need more of these kind of people, more of that kind of people. And we had it the other day actually with the digital records group, they said we haven’t got any building managers in the group, it turned out that we’ve got 7. It’s a good idea to put that out and make it more transparent as to exactly who is in the group and what their specialism is. And then even somebody who doesn’t come very often, if it’s a particular reason that we want them there we can single the, out and get in touch with them individually.
PAUL OAKLEY Thanks for everybody’s input today, I think we had some quite good discussions on that. And then hopefully from what we’ve discussed and what we’ve got in the chat etc we can put out some basic guidelines on that to start something going. Which is what we’ve done with BIM4housing, we put out some basic papers on different things there which everybody can then start to use for different purposes.
RICHARD Well, this with the unique identifier is vital, there is something coherent out there and if you guys can pull that together I think that makes a great deal of sense.
CHAT
Adrian Mokus (External)11:19 am
ISO 22014:2024 now for Object Libraries
Dimitrios Theodorou (External)11:36 am
AIM acc to 19650
IfcSite, IfcBuilding
IfcExternalSpace
IfcSpace
Andrew Waring (External)11:42 am
DIO Spec24
Dimitrios Theodorou (External)11:43 am
In the IFC schema there is no notion of "facility". There has to be an alignment of terminology with the IFC schema or a mapping rule
Andrew Waring (External)11:50 am
Spatialbreakdown could be
YEOV01000123ZZ
Which is
YEOV Site Code
0100 - Building code
so its an almagam of various pieces.
But if a site wide masterplan, the YEOV would do
Dimitrios Theodorou (External)11:53 am
IfcZone containing IfcSpace