Demonstrate 3D handing for different communities

[nicholascar]

Following the general handing of 3D given in Issue #518, here we seek to list different 3D user communities that we can demonstrate a GeoSPARQL handing of 3D for.

The initial communities are as follows (these can be added to):

Community	Their Interest	Contact People	GeoSPARQL Rep
ANZ 3D Cadastre	3D geometry representation, 3D topological relations	Rob Atkinson (@rob-metalinkage), OGC R Fraser (@rogerfraser) Vic Gov Gordon Szczepina, Qld Gov	@nicholascar
Cuneiform Scanning	3D geometry representation	?	@situx
Stratigraphy	specialised 3D topological relations	International Commission on Stratigraphy	@nicholascar
Soil Modelling	specialised 3D topological relations	@dr-shorthair	@nicholascar
Building Modelling	3D geometry representation, 3D topological relations	@mathib	@nicholascar, @situx

[nicholascar]

Possible interactions with a community:

Who	What	When	Notes
Community X	Writes up or indicates several Use Cases for semantic 3D spatial data	by June	in isolation, for un-biased through
SWG	Scopes a 3D handing	by June	in isloation
Community X & SWG	Meet to discuss and generate examples	June/Aug
SWG	Refines all community's examples together	Sep

[VladimirAlexiev]

Hi @nicholascar ! Please add me as BIM contact along with @mathib.

We have a strong need for standardized:

• workable representation of 3D geometry. The LBD group has proposed about 5 geometry ontologies; some point to external files, others represent geometry with literals, etc. There's also an OCC (OpenCASCADES) proposed ontology, since OpenCASCADES is often used for BIM visualization
• 3D functions (eg max height of building) and magic predicates (eg ). The paper on "BimSPARQL" (see Zotero below) has several useful examples of such functions.

Rolf Jonker of Geonovum and city of Rotterdam is setting up a WG to define such requirements for BIM.

• Peter Bonsma (@peterrdf), Thomas Krijnen (@aothms), Jyrki Oraskari (@jyrkioraskari) and myself will participate
• Two EU projects on automated BIM compliance checking (ACCORD and CHEK) will participate

I pointed Rolf to this issue so there can be one WG.

We have a shared bibliography https://www.zotero.org/groups/3007408/semantic_bim. These collections are relevant to the topic:

• BIM geometry
• BIM and geospatial

If you'd like to contribute publications, please give me your Zotero id and I'll add you.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Also in the context of ACCORD and CHEK, we are working with OGC people (@avillar, @rob-metalinkage) on "CityRDF":
an RDF representation of CityGML (including ontology and JSONLD context as a minimum).

• CityRDF needs GeoSPARQL 3D support as much as BIM does because:
• Alejandro and Rob have agreed that capturing coordinates and vertices as RDF triples doesn't scale

Within ACCORD, we are working on Land Use cases (checking IFC BIM architectural design for compliance with planning zones).
We've worked with:

• INSPIRE PLU (which has a tentative conversion to an ontology using ShapeChange)
• The German XPlanung standard (we've developed a custom conversion of part of it to RDF)

So @nicholascar, should we count CityRDF and/or Land Use as separate "communities" in the table above?

[jakob-beetz]

Hi all,

@aothms was so kind to notify me of this. @AnneGoebels and @OlliSchu and I are working on serveral related issues w.r.t. spatially querying heterogeneous BIM-related and Linked Data. We are very interested in this development and would be happy to contribute in any form or shape. We are currently involved in a German Research foundation project "RaumLink" ("SpaceLink') to query infrastructural data across BIM/GIS domanins. Main use case deterriorating bridge infrastructure.
We are aiming for a 3D Spatial Calculus to spatialy link things.

Here is some of the (old and new) work:

• BIMSparql : https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.3233/SW-180297
• Transfer of implicit semi-formal textual location descriptions in three-dimensional model contexts
• https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/962598

It would also be terffic to get the two "National Research Data Infrastructure" Communities from Germany in. I will very likely have some chance to represent for https://nfdi4ing.de/ and I am sure NFDI4Earth is there already somehow https://www.nfdi4earth.de/

Hope we can get into the loop.
Best
Jakob

[VladimirAlexiev]

cc @nataschake

[situx]

@jakob-beetz
Thank you very much for your interest.
We welcome contributions in the form of pull requests, and we have a biweekly call (Wednesday at 10pm CET) that you could join.
For the link please send a mail to our mailing list (in README.md)

The easiest form of contribution for us is:

1. Describing a use case you would like to solve with GeoSPARQL that you currently cannot
2. Describe how you solve it with your work
3. Describe how you think it could be incorporated in the current version of GeoSPARQL

Then we can easily discuss it in the meeting and add it to the next GeoSPARQL revision - if deemed fitting.

I will go through your work to get an impression.

Concerning NFDI, I am loosely affiliated with NFDI4Objects, which are likely also interested in this.

[jabhay]

Will engage with a number of these groups as part of #620