A review of ontologies within the domain of smart and ongoing commissioning

Gilani, Sara; Quinn, Caroline; McArthur, J.J.

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107099

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Building operation was selected from all building life cycle phases because it is clear from the literature that semantic interoperability is still a major issue in this phase. Work emphasizes the need to enable semantic interoperability for smart, grid-interactive buildings [21], to optimize energy performance in buildings [16], and to support the smart and ongoing commissioning of buildings [55]. Additionally, many initiatives are underway to support improved building operation, including efforts by Project Haystack [62], the ANSI C137 lighting systems committee [63], the ZigBee Alliance's Project Connected Home over IP [32], Brick Schema [64], the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 223p committee [70], and the US Department of Energy Semantic Interoperability Initiative [71].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ratio of schemas selected using the article search to the total number of papers was 1.5%. Indeed, a large fraction of the papers screened were found to compare existing schemas, synthesize or extend them, or use them to demonstrate particular applications rather than presenting new ones (in agreement with [55]). Further, of the 24 ontologies found using this method, only 3 were not duplicated by the ontology search or expert search.…”

Section: Challenges In Collecting and Identifying Schemasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While being valuable contributions, these papers do not conduct a systematic survey of existing metadata schemas. Gilani et al [55] use a systematic approach but limit its scope to smart buildings and their ongoing commissioning.…”

Section: Contribution Of This Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital and intelligent buildings are critical to realizing efficient building energy operations and a smart grid. With the increasing digitalization of processes throughout the life cycle of buildings, data exchanged between stakeholders and between building systems have grown significantly. However, a lack of semantic interoperability between data in different systems is still prevalent and hinders the development of energy-oriented applications that can be reused across buildings, limiting the scalability of innovative solutions. Addressing this challenge, our review paper systematically reviews metadata schemas and ontologies that are at the foundation of semantic interoperability necessary to move toward improved building energy operations. The review finds 40 schemas that span different phases of the building life cycle, most of which cover commercial building operations and, in particular, control and monitoring systems. The paper’s deeper review and analysis of five popular schemas identify several gaps in their ability to fully facilitate the work of a building modeler attempting to support three use cases: energy audits, automated fault detection and diagnosis, and optimal control. Our findings demonstrate that building modelers focused on energy use cases will find it difficult, labor intensive, and costly to create, sustain, and use semantic models with existing ontologies. This underscores the significant work still to be done to enable interoperable, usable, and maintainable building models. We make three recommendations for future work by the building modeling and energy communities: a centralized repository with a search engine for relevant schemas, the development of more use cases, and better harmonization and standardization of schemas in collaboration with industry to facilitate their adoption by stakeholders addressing varied energy-focused use cases.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenges In Collecting and Identifying Schemasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Zhang et al (2017) presented the architecture of four mainstream unit's ontologies and then compared them based on structural organization, pattern design and application ontologies and also to assess the quality of ontologies. Gilani et al (2020) critically reviewed the research on building data ontologies conducted since 2014 in the intelligent and ongoing commissioning domain, categorizing it by building data types, general approaches and applications. Khamparia and Kaur (2014) performed a comparative study of medical care ontologies based on parameters, like the tools used, representational language, methods and their distinct features.…”

Section: State-of-the-art Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of data mining ontologies

Sinha

Gajbe

Debnath

et al. 2021

DTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis work provides a generic review of the existing data mining ontologies (DMOs) and also provides a base platform for ontology developers and researchers for gauging the ontologies for satisfactory coverage and usage.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses a systematic literature review approach to identify 35 DMOs in the domain between the years 2003 and 2021. Various parameters, like purpose, design methodology, operations used, language representation, etc. are available in the literature to review ontologies. Accompanying the existing parameters, a few parameters, like semantic reasoner used, knowledge representation formalism was added and a list of 20 parameters was prepared. It was then segregated into two groups as generic parameters and core parameters to review DMOs.FindingsIt was observed that among the 35 papers under the study, 26 papers were published between the years 2006 and 2016. Larisa Soldatova, Saso Dzeroski and Pance Panov were the most productive authors of these DMO-related publications. The ontological review indicated that most of the DMOs were domain and task ontologies. Majority of ontologies were formal, modular and represented using web ontology language (OWL). The data revealed that Ontology development 101, METHONTOLOGY was the preferred design methodology, and application-based approaches were preferred for evaluation. It was also observed that around eight ontologies were accessible, and among them, three were available in ontology libraries as well. The most reused ontologies were OntoDM, BFO, OBO-RO, OBI, IAO, OntoDT, SWO and DMOP. The most preferred ontology editor was Protégé, whereas the most used semantic reasoner was Pellet. Even ontology metrics for 16 DMOs were also available.Originality/valueThis paper carries out a basic level review of DMOs employing a parametric approach, which makes this study the first of a kind for the review of DMOs.

show abstract

“…One of the well-known mechanisms suitable for capturing knowledge and making it explicit for seamless sharing of information in a domain of interest is ontology (13,14). Some studies have investigated the use of ontologies in the intersection of Ontology Engineering and virtual reality (15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Ontologies in Virtual Reality-Based Training for Healthcare Domain

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual reality (VR) is one of the state-of-the-art technological applications in the healthcare domain. One major aspect of VR applications in this domain includes virtual reality-based training (VRT), which simplifies the complicated visualization process of diagnosis, treatment, disease analysis, and prevention. However, not much is known on how well the domain knowledge is shared and considered in the development of VRT applications. A pertinent mechanism, known as ontology, has acted as an enabler toward making the domain knowledge more explicit. Hence, this paper presents an overview to reveal the basic concepts and explores the extent to which ontologies are used in VRT development for medical education and training in the healthcare domain. From this overview, a base of knowledge for VRT development is proposed to initiate a comprehensive strategy in creating an effective ontology design for VRT applications in the healthcare domain.

show abstract

A review of ontologies within the domain of smart and ongoing commissioning

Cited by 31 publications

References 62 publications

Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis

Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis

A review of data mining ontologies

An Overview of Ontologies in Virtual Reality-Based Training for Healthcare Domain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About