Interlinking geospatial and building geometry with existing and developing standards on the web

Geometric data plays a central role in the geospatial domain, architectural design and construction industry. For upcoming, new approaches to store building data, such as the Semantic Web, no universal common agreement exists on the combination of geometric and non-geometric data. It can therefore be unclear to users on how to represent their geometries, leading to a decelerated application and advancement of making building data available over the web. This gap can only be bridged if a common approach on the representation of geometries on the web is achieved. To first generate a common understanding of geometry representations, an overview of existing and developing geometry (web) standards needs to be given and discussed, i.e., the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), CityGML, GeoSPARQL, and the OntoBREP and GEOM ontologies. This discussion needs to consider general contexts, e.g., 2D, 3D, detailed, or tessellated geometries, and specific use cases of the construction industry. Based on these discussions, this paper aims to propose a general recommendation for web-based geometry representations to enhance future applications of building data on the web. Due to the variety of use cases and their requirements, as well as technical constraints based on deviant interpretations of geometry descriptions from different geometry kernels, it became clear, that no approach or standard is generally superior to others. The biggest distinction identified in this paper is posed between the context of visualizing, where simplified, tessellated geometry holds the highest advantage, and (parametric) modeling, which requires semantically detailed geometry representations. Hence, we recommend to interlink non-geometric data with multiple geometry representations, to address all relevant contexts and use cases appropriately. The individual geometry representations should be chosen based on the relevant use cases for an optimal experience when using and exchanging geometry on the web. With this recommendation, the benefits of all discussed approaches can be exploited while avoiding their respective challenges. abstract_en: Geometric data plays a central role in the geospatial domain, architectural design and construction industry. For upcoming, new approaches to store building data, such as the Semantic Web, no universal common agreement exists on the combination of geometric and non-geometric data. It can therefore be unclear to users on how to represent their geometries, leading to a decelerated application and advancement of making building data available over the web. This gap can only be bridged if a common approach on the representation of geometries on the web is achieved. To first generate a common understanding of geometry representations, an overview of existing and developing geometry (web) standards needs to be given and discussed, i.e., the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), CityGML, GeoSPARQL, and the OntoBREP and GEOM ontologies. This discussion needs to consider general contexts, e.g., 2D, 3D, detailed, or tessellated geometries, and specific use cases of the construction industry. Based on these discussions, this paper aims to propose a general recommendation for web-based geometry representations to enhance future applications of building data on the web. Due to the variety of use cases and their requirements, as well as technical constraints based on deviant interpretations of geometry descriptions from different geometry kernels, it became clear, that no approach or standard is generally superior to others. The biggest distinction identified in this paper is posed between the context of visualizing, where simplified, tessellated geometry holds the highest advantage, and (parametric) modeling, which requires semantically detailed geometry representations. Hence, we recommend to interlink non-geometric data with multiple geometry representations, to address all relevant contexts and use cases appropriately. The individual geometry representations should be chosen based on the relevant use cases for an optimal experience when using and exchanging geometry on the web. With this recommendation, the benefits of all discussed approaches can be exploited while avoiding their respective challenges.