Giorgio: In class Building_ADE, given that it is boolean, we should rename the attribute to “isLandmark”, for consistence with other attributes (isSunExposed, etc.)
Romain: We’ve decided that heritage and landmark building information would be not mentioned in the Energy ADE (but a proposition will be made to the CityGML 3.0 working group). As a consequence, this attribute should be deleted from the Energy ADE 0.6.
Joachim: I suggest to leave this attribute and follow Giorgio’s proposition to rename it to “isLandmarked”. It is correct that this is a general CityGML issue, but I expect CityGML 3.0 not before late 2017, if any. In IFC, a building also has such an attribute, which shows that it might be relevant for some applications.
Some comments to consider for the 0.7 version
Giorgio: In class Building_ADE, given that it is boolean, we should rename the attribute to “isLandmark”, for consistence with other attributes (isSunExposed, etc.)
Romain: We’ve decided that heritage and landmark building information would be not mentioned in the Energy ADE (but a proposition will be made to the CityGML 3.0 working group). As a consequence, this attribute should be deleted from the Energy ADE 0.6.
Joachim: I suggest to leave this attribute and follow Giorgio’s proposition to rename it to “isLandmarked”. It is correct that this is a general CityGML issue, but I expect CityGML 3.0 not before late 2017, if any. In IFC, a building also has such an attribute, which shows that it might be relevant for some applications.