Kim, T W and Fischer, M (2014) Ontology for representing building users' activities in space-use analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(8): 04014035, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In spite of advances in formalizing space-use analysis (SUA) methods, which predict space utilization of buildings based on user activities and spaces, a detailed ontology that provides architects with a common vocabulary to represent their information about user activities is still lacking. The authors created an ontology that can be used in a formalized SUA method by extending combined existing theories on representing user or construction activities. This ontology allows architects to represent a user activity in a <User>, an <Action>, and two <Spatial requirement> instances. It also allows a computer to distinguish between 288 different space-use types that affect SUA and treat them differently. This paper contributes to the field of performance-based building design by offering a means of expressing user activities in a computer-interpretable form and using them in SUA, which informs about space utilization (a performance criterion) of a design option.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | knowledge-based systems; project planning and design; space utilization; space-use type; space-use type differentiator; user activity |
| Index terms: | performance-based, ontology, construction activity, option, knowledge-based system, project planning, building design, architect |
| Subjects: | architectural design, profession, construction operations, decision analysis, education and knowledge transfer, artificial intelligence, performance measurement, control systems |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Site Management, Project Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here