Graph in BIM/GIS Integration: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Junxiang Zhu
,
Heap-Yih Chong
,
Hongwei Zhao
,
Jeremy Wu
,
Yi Tan
,
Honglei Xu

Information exchange between building information modelling (BIM) and geographic information system (GIS) is problematic, especially in terms of semantic information. Graph-based technologies, such as the resource description framework (RDF) and the labelled property graph (LPG), are promising in solving this problem. These two technologies are different but have not been systematically investigated in the context of BIM/GIS integration. 

  • building information modelling (BIM)
  • geographic information system (GIS)
  • industry foundation classes (IFC)

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview of BIM and GIS Integration

The integration of building information modelling (BIM) and geographic information systems (GISs) enables the creation of large-scale virtual city models, which can contribute to the development of smart cities and digital twins [1], which has been investigated by researchers from the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) domain and the geospatial industry over the past ten years, at both the application level and the fundamental data level. While application-level studies primarily investigate the joint use of BIM and GIS technologies in solving practical problems, such as flood damage assessment [2][3], traffic noise assessment [4], supply chain management [5][6], offshore platform disassembly [7], and construction risk management [8], data-level studies investigate how to effectively integrate data from these two diverse sources to better support the upper application-level studies [9]. Data-level studies are required because BIM data cannot be directly and fully read by GIS applications, which is an across-domain interoperability issue.

1.2. The Interoperability Issue between BIM and GIS

Interoperability issues are common between information systems, such as GISs that integrate heterogeneous data from various sources, such as satellite images from remote sensing [10], topographic data from surveying and photogrammetry [11], location data from positioning systems [12], and other textual or tabular data. An early study on interoperability is from Bishr [13], which investigated the interoperability issue among GISs and proposed six levels of interoperability in relation to network protocols, hardware and OS (Operating System), spatial data files, DBMS (database management system), data model, and application semantics, respectively.
The interoperability can be improved by advances in the underlying technologies [13]. By far, many of the interoperability issues have been properly addressed for GIS, such as those related to network protocols, hardware and OS, spatial data files, and DBMS. For example, common database APIs (Application Programming Interface), such as ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) and JDBC (Java Database Connectivity) [14], can be used to improve interoperability at the DBMS level.
This interoperability theory can also be applied to BIM/GIS integration. Between BIM and GIS, the interoperability issue is at both the syntactic and semantic levels [15][16]. Syntactic interoperability is mainly about accessing information, i.e., how to read building information, while semantic interoperability is mainly about understanding information, i.e., how to interpret building information. Bishr [13] proposed two approaches for improving data interoperability, including (1) providing the data receiver with information about the data and (2) providing a mechanism that enables automatic data conversion. In the context of BIM/GIS integration, most studies adopted the second approach. They converted BIM data in the open IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) format into common GIS formats, such as CityGML (City Geography Markup Language) [17], GML (Geography Markup Language) [2], shapefile [18][19], 3D tiles [20], and 3D scene layer (I3S) [21]. To facilitate BIM-to-GIS data conversion, there are also efforts in developing international standards, such as the ISO/TR 23262:2021 [22] for GIS(geospatial)/BIM interoperability and the ISO/TS 19166:2021 [23] for BIM to GIS conceptual mapping (B2GM).

1.3. The Basic Pattern for BIM-to-GIS Data Conversion

The mainstream of BIM/GIS integration is to use building information in GIS [24][25], due to the different strengths of BIM and GIS. In the workflow of BIM/GIS integration, BIM is usually used as an information source and GIS is used for information processing and analysing, and BIM data need to be converted.
During the data conversion, two aspects of BIM data need to be considered, i.e., geometry and semantics. Geometric information is about the size, shape, location, and orientation of models, while semantic information provides additional information about these models, such as attributes, relations, and properties, which is also referred to as non-geometric information [26][27]. Due to their diverse natures, these two types of information need to be handled separately.
Accordingly, data-level integration of BIM and GIS mainly deals with two tasks, i.e., geometry conversion and semantics transfer [24][25]. Geometry conversion deals with the conversion of ‘shape’, so that the shapes of building components created by BIM, both explicit shapes (e.g., boundary representation, or B-rep) and implicit shapes (e.g., swept solids and constructive solid geometry), can all be converted into explicit shapes to be used in GIS [28][29][30]. The process of converting implicit models into explicit models is referred to as boundary evaluation [31]. Semantics transfer deals with the transfer of semantic information (or the ‘information’ in BIM). The separately processed geometric information and semantic information are then combined again on the GIS side and used in practice [2][24]. This is the basic pattern for BIM-to-GIS data conversion (see Figure 1). A thorough review of BIM/GIS data integration has been presented by Zhu et al. [24].
Buildings 12 02162 g001
Figure 1. The basic pattern for BIM-to-GIS data conversion.

1.4. Problems in BIM-to-GIS Conversion Paths

This basic conversion pattern can be expanded into detailed paths for converting BIM data into different formats on the GIS side. Zhu et al. [24] have identified four conversion paths on top of this basic pattern, including the dataset-oriented path, the system-oriented path, the data-model-based path, and the ontology-based path. Unfortunately, these conversion paths cannot address the interoperability issue on their own.
First, the dataset-oriented path has problems in geometry conversion and semantics transfer. (a) For the IFC-to-CityGML conversion, an effective and efficient way for the solid-to-surface conversion is absent, and the class mapping problem has not been well addressed. (b) For the IFC-to-shapefile conversion, the main problem is semantics transfer. The interconnected BIM information, which can be thought of as a graph according to Zhu et al. [21], cannot be effectively represented in the traditional relational database that is used by GIS [32]. (c) A relatively new format used in BIM/GIS integration is 3D Tiles, which is a format used by Cesium [33] to stream 3D geospatial datasets for web-based applications [34]. The IFC-to-3D-tiles conversion, like the IFC-to-shapefile conversion, mainly focuses on geometry and transfers limited semantics. Second, the data-model-based path mainly creates project-specific data models by identifying information requirements for projects. For example, the BO-IDM (BIM-oriented indoor data model) developed by Isikdag et al. [35] presents information requirements for indoor navigation. Using this path, only the required information was extracted and transferred. Third, the ontology-based path only focuses on semantics only, in which the geometry is neglected.
When the use of a single conversion path cannot solve the problem, a potential way to improve data interoperability is to jointly use several paths. For example, the geometric information can be handled by using shapefile or 3D Tile (the dataset-oriented path), while the semantic information can be stored in Resource Description Framework (RDF) (the ontology-based path), or other graph-based formats that can effectively represent the relationships [26].

1.5. Using Graph to Improve Interoperability

Graphs can be used to represent interconnected information [36], such as BIM information, and support efficient and effective information retrieval and analysis by using graph-traversal based algorithms [32]. Due to the flexible structure and the high performance in information storage and retrieval, graph databases are being adopted by many areas, such as the AEC domain [37][38], the geospatial industry [39], and the biomedical domain [40][41].
In a general sense, a graph can model most things in the world [42], and according to [43], a graph-based model is in many cases likely to facilitate the integration of information. In this sense, in the context of BIM/GIS integration, there would be a new form of using building information on the GIS side, which is ‘geometry plus graph’ (see Figure 2), instead of the traditional ‘geometry plus tables’.
Buildings 12 02162 g002
Figure 2. A new form of using building information in GIS by using graph.

2. Using Graph in BIM/GIS Data Integration

2.1. Graphs and Graph Theory

Graph is a term generally used to describe diagrams consisting of nodes and edges. A graph can be mathematically described by using the equation, , where G is a graph, V indicates the set of vertices in the graph, and E is the set of edges in the graph [44], and . The graph theory studies graphs, including graph type (e.g., pseudograph, directed graph, labelled graph, and multigraph), graph structure (e.g., trees, cycles, networks), features of graph structure (e.g., distance, connectivity, and planarity), and graph-based algorithms (e.g., the Dijkstra’s algorithm for finding the shortest path between two nodes), as well as using these algorithms to solve practical problems. The basic concepts in graph theory include node, edge, path, connectivity, and graph traversal [45]. In general, a graph can be used to model all kinds of scenarios due to its general-purpose, and expressive structure [42].
The main applications of graphs include the following. (a) Information visualisation. Graphs are more expressive than tables and texts, and more importantly, they are more intuitive and easier to understand. For example, the IFC schema expressed in UML (Unified Modelling Language, a language for graphically representing data models/standards [46]) is easier to understand than the text-based EXPRESS schema. In this sense, a graph is also helpful in understanding the structure of datasets in many fields, such as business, government, and science. (b) Data storage. Graph-based databases, such as neo4j, can use nodes and edges to store information. Data, especially relationships, stored in a graph database can be more efficiently retrieved than from a conventional relational database [47]. (c) Data analysis. Graph theory focuses on the modelling of networks of connected elements [43], and the connections between elements can be identified through networks. Graph algorithms have been widely used in computer science, information communication, and geospatial science. For example, Dijkstra’s algorithm is commonly used in pathfinding and navigation [48][49].

2.2. Graphs in BIM/GIS Data Integration

Graphs are being used in BIM/GIS integration, mainly at the application level, where BIM, GIS, and graphs were jointly used to solve problems such as indoor navigation and emergency response [35][50][51][52][53]. In these studies, the basic pattern is (a) extracting building information and geospatial information, (b) generating the geometric graphs (or geometric network), such as the multi-purpose geometric network model by Teo and Cho [53], and (c) applying the path finding algorithm.
At the data level, there is a smaller number of studies. These studies mainly convert BIM and GIS data into graphs, e.g., in the form of RDF triples or LPG. For example, Stouffs et al. [54] converted IFC and CityGML into graphs separately and connected them via a correlation graph, which is referred to as the Triple Graph Grammar (TGG), to convert IFC data into CityGML. Hor et al. [32] created a semantic graph database by converting CityGML and IFC into RDF, which was later converted into a property graph in neo4j. Malinverni et al. [39] investigated the conversion of CityGML into RDF.
Even though only a limited number of studies are directly dedicated to BIM/GIS data integration using a graph, there are more studies available on converting IFC into graphs, which can contribute to the first steps of BIM/GIS data integration [24]. The whole process of BIM/GIS data integration is presented in Figure 3, as well as the potential contribution of graphs in this process. 
Buildings 12 02162 g004
Figure 3. Graph contributing to BIM/GIS data integration.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings12122162

References

  1. Ma, Z.; Ren, Y. Integrated application of BIM and GIS: An overview. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 1072–1079.
  2. Amirebrahimi, S.; Rajabifard, A.; Mendis, P.; Ngo, T. A framework for a microscale flood damage assessment and visualization for a building using BIM–GIS integration. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2016, 9, 363–386.
  3. Rong, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zheng, Y.; Hu, C.; Peng, L.; Feng, P. Three-dimensional urban flood inundation simulation based on digital aerial photogrammetry. J. Hydrol. 2020, 584, 124308.
  4. Deng, Y.; Cheng, J.C.; Anumba, C. A framework for 3D traffic noise mapping using data from BIM and GIS integration. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 12, 1267–1280.
  5. Wang, T.-K.; Zhang, Q.; Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X. Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain: An approach via analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey relational analysis (GRA). Sustainability 2017, 9, 289.
  6. Deng, Y.; Gan, V.J.; Das, M.; Cheng, J.C.; Anumba, C. Integrating 4D BIM and GIS for construction supply chain management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019016.
  7. Tan, Y.; Song, Y.; Zhu, J.; Long, Q.; Wang, X.; Cheng, J.C.P. Optimizing lift operations and vessel transport schedules for disassembly of multiple offshore platforms using BIM and GIS. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 328–339.
  8. Lee, P.-C.; Zheng, L.-L.; Lo, T.-P.; Long, D.-B. A Risk Management System for Deep Excavation Based on BIM-3DGIS Framework and Optimized Grey Verhulst Model. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 715–726.
  9. Isikdag, U. Towards the Implementation of Building Information Models in Geospatial Context. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Salford, Salford, UK, 2006.
  10. Campbell, J.B.; Wynne, R.H. Introduction to Remote Sensing, 5th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  11. Colomina, I.; Molina, P. Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 92, 79–97.
  12. Longley, P.A.; Goodchild, M.F.; Maguire, D.J.; Rhind, D.W. Geographic Information Science and Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  13. Bishr, Y. Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1998, 12, 299–314.
  14. Silberschatz, A.; Korth, H.F.; Sudarshan, S. Database System Concepts; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  15. Karan, E.P.; Irizarry, J.; Haymaker, J. BIM and GIS integration and interoperability based on semantic web technology. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2016, 30, 04015043.
  16. Karan, E.P.; Irizarry, J. Extending BIM interoperability to preconstruction operations using geospatial analyses and semantic web services. Autom. Constr. 2015, 53, 1–12.
  17. Deng, Y.; Cheng, J.C.; Anumba, C. Mapping between BIM and 3D GIS in different levels of detail using schema mediation and instance comparison. Autom. Constr. 2016, 67, 1–21.
  18. Isikdag, U.; Underwood, J.; Aouad, G. An investigation into the applicability of building information models in geospatial environment in support of site selection and fire response management processes. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2008, 22, 504–519.
  19. Zhu, J.; Wu, P. A Common Approach to Geo-Referencing Building Models in Industry Foundation Classes for BIM/GIS Integration. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 362.
  20. Xu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Li, H.; Lin, Y.-H.; Yin, S. Combining IFC and 3D tiles to create 3D visualization for building information modeling. Autom. Constr. 2020, 109, 102995.
  21. Zhu, J.; Wu, P.; Anumba, C. A Semantics-Based Approach for Simplifying IFC Building Models to Facilitate the Use of BIM Models in GIS. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4727.
  22. ISO/TR 23262:2021; GIS (Geospatial)/BIM Interoperability. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/75105.html (accessed on 3 July 2022).
  23. ISO/TS 19166:2021; Geographic Information—BIM to GIS Conceptual Mapping (B2GM). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/78899.html (accessed on 3 July 2022).
  24. Zhu, J.; Wu, P. BIM/GIS data integration from the perspective of information flow. Autom. Constr. 2022, 136, 104166.
  25. Zhu, J.; Wright, G.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. A Critical Review on the Integration of Geographic Information System and Building Information Modelling at the Data Level. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 66.
  26. Zhu, J.; Wu, P. Towards Effective BIM/GIS Data Integration for Smart City by Integrating Computer Graphics Technique. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1889.
  27. Simeone, D.; Cursi, S.; Acierno, M. BIM semantic-enrichment for built heritage representation. Autom. Constr. 2019, 97, 122–137.
  28. Zhu, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, M.; Wu, P.; Kim, M.J. Integration of BIM and GIS: IFC geometry transformation to shapefile using enhanced open-source approach. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102859.
  29. Zhu, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, P.; Wu, Z.; Kim, M.J. Integration of BIM and GIS: Geometry from IFC to shapefile using open-source technology. Autom. Constr. 2019, 102, 105–119.
  30. Zhu, J.; Wu, P.; Chen, M.; Kim, M.J.; Wang, X.; Fang, T. Automatically processing IFC clipping representation for BIM and GIS integration at the process level. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2009.
  31. LaCourse, D.E. Handbook of Solid Modeling; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
  32. Hor, A.; Gunho, S.; Claudio, P.; Jadidi, M.; Afnan, A. A semantic graph database for BIM-GIS integrated information model for an intelligent urban mobility web application. In Proceedings of the ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Delft, The Netherlands, 1–5 October 2018.
  33. Cesium. The Platform for 3D Geospatial. Available online: https://cesium.com/ (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  34. Chen, Y.; Shooraj, E.; Rajabifard, A.; Sabri, S. From IFC to 3D Tiles: An Integrated Open-Source Solution for Visualising BIMs on Cesium. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 393.
  35. Isikdag, U.; Zlatanova, S.; Underwood, J. A BIM-Oriented Model for supporting indoor navigation requirements. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2013, 41, 112–123.
  36. G2.com. Best Graph Databases. Available online: https://www.g2.com/categories/graph-databases (accessed on 30 June 2022).
  37. Donkers, A.J.; Yang, D.; Baken, N.H. Linked Data for Smart Homes: Comparing RDF and Labeled Property Graphs. In Proceedings of the Linked Data in Architecture and Construction, Dublin, Ireland, 17–19 June 2020; CEUR-WS.org: Dublin, Ireland, 2020; pp. 23–36.
  38. Pauwels, P.; Zhang, S.; Lee, Y.-C. Semantic web technologies in AEC industry: A literature overview. Autom. Constr. 2017, 73, 145–165.
  39. Malinverni, E.S.; Naticchia, B.; Lerma Garcia, J.L.; Gorreja, A.; Lopez Uriarte, J.; Di Stefano, F. A semantic graph database for the interoperability of 3D GIS data. Appl. Geomat. 2022, 14, 53–66.
  40. Timón-Reina, S.; Rincón, M.; Martínez-Tomás, R. An overview of graph databases and their applications in the biomedical domain. Database 2021, 2021, baab026.
  41. Alocci, D.; Mariethoz, J.; Horlacher, O.; Bolleman, J.T.; Campbell, M.P.; Lisacek, F. Property graph vs RDF triple store: A comparison on glycan substructure search. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144578.
  42. Rodriguez, M.A.; Neubauer, P. Constructions from dots and lines. arXiv 2010, arXiv:1006.2361.
  43. Isaac, S.; Sadeghpour, F.; Navon, R. Analyzing Building Information Using Graph Theory. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC 2013); Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–15 August 2013, pp. 1013–1020.
  44. Gould, R. Graph Theory; The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1988.
  45. Diestel, R. Graph Theory; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 173–207.
  46. Pooley, R.; King, P. The unified modelling language and performance engineering. IEE Proc. -Softw. 1999, 146, 2–10.
  47. Robinson, I.; Webber, J.; Eifrem, E. Graph Databases: New Opportunities for Connected Data; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2015.
  48. Johnson, D.B. A note on Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm. J. ACM 1973, 20, 385–388.
  49. Enayattabar, M.; Ebrahimnejad, A.; Motameni, H. Dijkstra algorithm for shortest path problem under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Complex Intell. Syst. 2019, 5, 93–100.
  50. Tekavec, J.; Lisec, A. 3D geometry-based indoor network extraction for navigation applications using SFCGAL. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 417.
  51. Stoffel, E.-P.; Schoder, K.; Ohlbach, H.J. Applying hierarchical graphs to pedestrian indoor navigation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Irvine, CA, USA, 5–7 November 2008; pp. 1–4.
  52. Tashakkori, H.; Rajabifard, A.; Kalantari, M. A new 3D indoor/outdoor spatial model for indoor emergency response facilitation. Build. Environ. 2015, 89, 170–182.
  53. Teo, T.-A.; Cho, K.-H. BIM-oriented indoor network model for indoor and outdoor combined route planning. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2016, 30, 268–282.
  54. Stouffs, R.; Tauscher, H.; Biljecki, F. Achieving complete and near-lossless conversion from IFC to CityGML. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 355.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback