2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.compind.2014.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An ontology change management approach for facility management

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Current approaches involve the introduction of COBie standard, which identifies the required maintenance information that needs to be collected through design and construction phases and enables stakeholders to capture maintenance information in BIM in a structured way (East et al, 2013;Volk et al, 2014). Also other IFC based platforms were developed for information management through the LC of a facility (Vanlande et al, 2008;Pittet et al, 2014). Although COBie defines the fundamental data requirements, it is static and needs to be extended by the practitioners based on project's specific needs in the FM phase.…”
Section: Information Exchangementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current approaches involve the introduction of COBie standard, which identifies the required maintenance information that needs to be collected through design and construction phases and enables stakeholders to capture maintenance information in BIM in a structured way (East et al, 2013;Volk et al, 2014). Also other IFC based platforms were developed for information management through the LC of a facility (Vanlande et al, 2008;Pittet et al, 2014). Although COBie defines the fundamental data requirements, it is static and needs to be extended by the practitioners based on project's specific needs in the FM phase.…”
Section: Information Exchangementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While it has been an objective in research to create methodologies to keep track of the evolution of ontologies in general, these approaches (e.g. Pittet et al (2014)) focus on the ontology's schema level (TBox) and can therefore not directly be applied to instance level (ABox). Within the W3C Linked Building Data Community Group (W3C LBD CG)3, efforts have been made to allow version control of properties.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It fixes ontology inconsistency in a posteriori way. Pittet et al (2014) designed OntoVersionGraph that enables the change management for multicontext and user-centred systems. They joined the OWL DL ontology evolution with the versioning process in one methodology.…”
Section: State Of the Art Work Coping Mainly With Other Ontology Vementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature, three main storage strategies can be distinguished to manage ontology versions (Fernández, Polleres, & Fern, ). Independent copies (IC) approach (Heflin & Hendler, ; Klein, Fensel, Kiryakov, & Ognyanov, ; Kondylakis & Plexousakis, ; Pittet, Cruz, & Nicolle, ; Sassi, Jaziri, & Alharbi, ; Völkel & Groza, ) is a naïve storage strategy as it consists in just storing complete ontology versions in separate OWL or XML files (see Figure ). This policy offers complete and separate views of the domain states across different time periods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%