Trial lecture

Requirements, opportunities and barriers
connected to implementations of a common
conceptual framework for spatial information in
different domains
Knut Jetlund
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Norwegian Public Roads Administration
knut.jetlund@vegvesen.no
Twitter: @Jetgeo
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/knut-jetlund/
Photo: Werner Harstad, Statens vegvesen
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Breaking down the subject
«Requirements, opportunities and barriers connected to
implementations of a common conceptual framework for
spatial information in different domains»
• What is a conceptual framework, and why do we need it?
• What is special with a conceptual framework for spatial
information?
• Which domains are relevant for a common conceptual
framework for spatial information?
• Opportunities, barriers and requirements connected to
implementation
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Conceptual framework
Jabareen, Y. (2009):
“… a network … of interlinked concepts that
together provide a comprehensive understanding
of a phenomenon or phenomena”
Emans, R. (1970):
«a statement of central concepts and of the system
for organizing thinking about a complex
phenomena.»
Kresse, W., D. M. Danko and K. Fadaie (2012):
“a frame of concepts, ideas, terms, definitions, and
the interdependence between those.”
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Building blocks in a conceptual framework
ISO 19101-1:2014 Geographic Information — Reference model — Part 1: Fundamentals.
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

5
• Semantic
• Syntactic
• Services
ISO 19101-1:2014
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

6
• BIM – for AR and navigation inside the
Louvre and the Eiffel Tower
• Where is the Mona Lisa?
• Where are the steps?
• ITS and Smart Cities
• Where to drive and park
• Metro lines and schedules
• Meteorology
• The Louvre or the Eiffel Tower today?
• Social media
• Share the experience!
Other domains where spatial is a part
(examples)
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

7
Everything happens somewhere…
Example from Lifecycle Assessment : Production and use of concrete
…and where it
happens matter!
Vardeman et al. 2017
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

“The key problem lies in the
integration of data coming
from different sources in
different formats.”
Beetz, et al. (2020).
Enabling an Ecosystem of Digital Twins.
An ecosystem of digital twins
“The integration of multiple digital twins allows the creation of
an ecosystem of digital twins.“
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

9
The British National Digital Twin
Hetherington, J. and M. West (2020).
The pathway towards an Information Management Framework. A ‘Commons’ for Digital Built Britain, Digital Built Britain.
“…requires information to be compatible
across the built and natural
environment, presented in consistent
formats to allow for sharing and
integration between different digital
twins.”
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
“The integration of multiple digital twins allows the creation of
an ecosystem of digital twins.“

Evans, S., C. Savian, a. Burns and C. Cooper (2019).
Digital twins for the built environment.
“Long-term we’ll need interoperability
between digital twins, facilitated through a
common language and standards and a
robust governance framework.”
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

11
A common conceptual framework for
spatial information
• Common generic concepts and their relations - semantics
– Generic spatial concepts, their representations, and mathematical descriptions
• Common use of languages for describing and implementing
concepts and data - syntactics
• Common generic concepts for services
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

12
Spatial concepts in a common framework
for spatial information
• Location referencing – «where»
– Different levels of complexity
and accuracy
• Geometry – shape and extent
– Different levels of complexity
• Spatial relations – topology
• Spatial operations
– Intersects, buffer etc.
Photo: Knut Opeide, Statens vegvesen
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Opportunities
Photo: Anja Kristin Bakken, Statens vegvesen
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Opportunities
Integrated digital twins based on a
common conceptual framework
• More information accessible for all
– Compabillity and accessibillity
• Interpret and use data correctly
– Understanding
• Collect data once, use many times, by many
• Improved quality and consistency
– Share and improve data
• Combine information and gain new
knowledge
• Better informed decissions
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Evans, S., C. Savian, a. Burns and C. Cooper (2019).
Digital twins for the built environment.
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

“… give access to integrated data,
updated regularly, making information
visible that is currently unknown.
… the basis for better-informed
decisions that will lead to improved
outcomes and overall better quality
of life.”
Beetz, et al. (2020).
Enabling an Ecosystem of Digital Twins.
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

17
Hetherington, J. and M. West (2020).
The pathway towards an Information Management Framework. A ‘Commons’ for Digital Built Britain, Digital Built Britain.
“… could provide insights that enable
investment and/or changes to
increase infrastructure resilience,
reduce disruption and delays,
optimise our use of resources and
boost quality of life for citizens.”
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

18
Hubertus, P. et al. (2019). The Benefits of a Common Map Data Standard for Autonomous Driving.
• Data compatibility
• Ease of access
• Increased data quality
• Improved consistency of data
• Increased road safety
“When cars can communicate with each other
regardless of make, model or origin,
accidents can be prevented, our roads become
safer and everyone benefits, whether you
are a driver, passenger, cyclist or pedestrian.”
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Barriers
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

20
General barriers to
IT implementation
Stewart et al., 2004
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

21
Classification of barriers
• Beatty and Gordon, 1988
– Structural, human and
technical
• Bond and Houston, 2003
– Technology and market,
strategy and structure,
social and cultural
• Bernhardsen 1992
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

22
A fundamental barrier may
also be an opprotunity
• Existing applications and systems
– In each domain or more fragmented
– Con: Why change if it’s working within
the scope of the domain?
– Pro: Technological mature organizations
and persons
https://www.redbubble.com/
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Strategy and structure barriers
• Industry and organization
stakeholders:
– Standardization organizations,
software vendors, constructor clients,
constructors, consultants …
• Awareness and relation to the
world outside of the domain silo
– Understanding the benefits of
integration
– Willingness to adapt and invest in
integration
– Agree on a common
framework
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

24
Social and cultural barriers
• Standardization experts,
developers and users
– High expertice within each domain
– Much effort put into the development of
optimized domain-specific frameworks.
– Willingness to adapt to other domains
• Agreeing on a common framework
– Different cultures and technologies
– Cooperation across domains
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Technical barriers
• The framework
– Flexibility for adaption in different technologies
• Existing applications and systems
– Flexibility for for adapting to change
• Domain-specific concepts
– Specific domains need specific
representations of the real world
• Geometry and location referencing
– How common can a framework be?
https://store.forskerfabrikken.no/
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Requirements
Photo: Silje Drevdal, Statens vegvesen
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

27
Structural and human requirements
- Strategies to overcome barriers
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
• Look across domain borders
– Understand the value of shared
information
• Culture for adapting to change
• Willingness to invest for integration
Stewart et al., 2004

28
Hetherington, J. and M. West (2020)
Gilbert, T. et al. (2020)
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Hubertus, P. et al. (2019)

29
Technical requirements for the
framework
• Content
– Semantic and syntactic
• Spatial concepts
– Common services – query from
multiple sources
• Must be proved useful
– Prototype implementations
• Generic and independent of
implementation technology
– General IT technology, not domain-
specific
https://store.forskerfabrikken.no/
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

30
Generic technologies
“The main goal of the short term is to move from bespoke solutions and
technology to technologies and solutions that are scalable, widely adopted
and work in a broad range of tools.”
buildingSMART International (2020).
Technical Roadmap buildingSMART - Getting ready for the future
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Wrapping up
Photo: Tomas Rolland, Statens vegvesen
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

32
Discussion
• Given the barriers, can a common conceptual
framework for spatial information be established and
implemented for use across multiple domains?
– Depends on the organizations
– Semantic web technologies
• Opportunities now
– Established joint work on standardization
– Planned modernization of core standards
– ITS and Smart Cities will push the integration of information
from multiple sources
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

33
Concluding remarks
• Authority organizations like the NPRA have a multi-
domain responsibility.
– Will depend upon an ecosystem of digital twins
– Need to set requirements for software and specifications
• Software vendors have a key role
– Are they willing to look outside domain silos and invest in
integration?
Hetherington, J. and M. West (2020)
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

34
• Beatty, CA, and Gordon, JRM, 1988. Barriers To The Implementation Of CAD/CAM Systems. Sloan Management Review, 29 (4):25.
• Beetz, J, van Berlo, L, Borrman, nA, et al., 2020. Enabling an Ecosystem of Digital Twins. A buildingSMART International Positioning Paper.
https://www.buildingsmart.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Enabling-Digital-Twins-Positioning-Paper-Final.pdf.
• Bernhardsen, T, 1992. Geographic information systems. Arendal: Viak IT.
• Boje, C, Guerriero, A, Kubicki, S, et al., 2020. Towards a semantic Construction Digital Twin: Directions for future research. Automation in Construction,
114:103179, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103179.
• Bond, EU, and Houston, MB, 2003. Barriers to Matching New Technologies and Market Opportunities in Established Firms. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 20 (2):120-135, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.2002005.
• buildingSMART International, 2020. Technical Roadmap buildingSMART - Getting ready for the future.
• Emans, R, 1970. A Schema for the Classification of Conceptual Frameworks Involving Reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 3 (2):15-21.
• Evans, S, Savian, C, Burns, a, et al., 2019. Digital twins for the built environment. https://www.theiet.org/media/4719/digital-twins-for-the-built-
environment.pdf.
• Gilbert, T, Rönsdorf, C, Plume, J, et al., 2020. Built environment data standards and their integration: an analysis of IFC, CityGML and LandInfra. Open
Geospatial Consortium: Wayland, MA, USA, buildingSMART International: London, UK,, https://www.ogc.org/docs/discussion-papers.
• Hetherington, J, and West, M, 2020. The pathway towards an Information ManagementFramework. A ‘Commons’ for Digital Built Britain. Digital Built
Britain.
• Hubertus, P, Schleicher, M, Klebert, F, et al., 2019. The Benefits of a Common Map Data Standard for Autonomous Driving. Navigation Data Standard
e. V.,.
• IEC, 2019. Semantic interoperability: challenges in the digital transformation age. International Electrotechnical Commission,
https://basecamp.iec.ch/download/iec-white-paper-semantic-interoperability-challenges-in-the-digital-transformation-age-en/.
• ISO/TC 211, 2014. ISO 19101-1:2014 Geographic Information — Reference model — Part 1: Fundamentals.
• Jabareen, Y, 2009. Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (4):49-62,
doi: 10.1177/160940690900800406.
• Kresse, W, Danko, DM, and Fadaie, K, 2012. Standardization. In Springer Handbook of Geographic Information, edited by Kresse and Danko, 245-271.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Liu, S, Xie, B, Tivendal, L, et al., 2015. Critical barriers to BIM implementation in the AEC industry. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7 (6):162.
• Stewart, RA, Mohamed, S, and Marosszeky, M, 2004. An empirical investigation into the link between information technology implementation barriers and
coping strategies in the Australian construction industry. Construction Innovation, 4 (3):155-171, doi: 10.1108/14714170410815079.
• Tao, F, Cheng, J, Qi, Q, et al., 2018. Digital twin-driven product design, manufacturing and service with big data. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 94 (9-12):3563-3576, doi: 10.1007/s00170-017-0233-1.
• Vardeman, I, Charles, F, Krisnadhi, AA, et al., 2017. An Ontology Design Pattern and its use case for modeling material transformation. Semantic Web, 8
(5):719-731.
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Knut Jetlund
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Norwegian Public Roads Administration
knut.jetlund@vegvesen.no
Twitter: @Jetgeo
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/knut-jetlund/
Thank you!
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Trial lecture

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Trial lecture

Similar a Trial lecture (20)

Último

Último (20)

Trial lecture