Reference study of CityGML software support: The GeoBIM benchmark 2019—Part II

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Decision Making in the 4th Dimension—Exploring Use Cases and Technical Options for the Integration of 4D BIM and GIS during Construction

“…Our research highlighted the challenges of extracting data from Synchro using IFC, with loss of parent/child relationships between the different resources and the lack of ability to model the relationship between 3D geometry and a task purely in IFC. This reflects a more comprehensive review on IFC interoperability conducted by [14] which highlights additional IFC interoperability issues, as well as challenges described in [29], who note that "data is often only used for visualisation purposes, which does not require geometric and topological correctness" and [33], who state that "and no method can fully automatize the conversion process".…”

“…IFC is embedded in all major BIM software. However, while IFC aims to promote interopability, recent research has highlighted that challenges exist both within and between the various platforms [14].…”

“…It is used for the representation, storage, and exchange of 3D city and landscape models and provides both a data model and encoding mechanism for describing 3D objects with respect to their geometry, topology, semantics and appearance, and defines five levels of detail (LoD) from 0 to 4, each one providing additional detail in the 3D city model. As with IFC, interoperablity challenges exist and support for this standard within commercial software is poor [7].…”

Unveiling the Actual Progress of Digital Building Permit: Getting Awareness through a Critical State of the Art Review

“…Among the most popular data schemas are the data model proposed by the European Directive for a Spatial Data Insfrastructure (INSPIRE) 10 and CityGML, by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) 11 , adopted in its original version or by means of national Application Domain Extensions (ADEs) [44] in several cities and countries. However, for several reasons, among which the fact that such models are intended for a very wide scope, they are very complex and quite difficult to be implemented [45], also for being based on the Geography Markup Language (GML) format. Recently, CityJSON 12 was proposed as an alternative solution and approved by OGC, starting from a different implementation of the CityGML v.2.0 schema [46] and was proved to be very effective from an implementation point of view [47,48,49,50,51].…”

Reference study of IFC software support: The GeoBIM benchmark 2019—Part I

“…However, the final outcomes of the two different tasks are very specific for each standard and deserve to be presented and discussed separately, considering the specifics of each case. For these reasons, this article, which focuses on the results about the benchmark Task 1 (support for IFC), is written in tandem with Noardo et al (2020c), which describes Task 3, covering the support for CityGML. In order to allow each article to be read on its own, the two articles share some information (i.e., Section 2 explaining the general context and motivation of the study; Section 3.…”