Open michaelpoplawskipnnl opened 10 months ago
Proposal 2
Steve Ray and I discussed an approach today that we will trial for the "Pritoni" building and present to the broader team. In short:
Agree on a numbering convention for each building
When more than one model is produced for a given building, append an incremental number to the file name to differential between the models
Embed model development details in the model using the dc/terms ontology, using enough concepts to capture important differences (e.g., development team) https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms http://purl.org/dc/terms/
Describe important differences on the corresponding model webpages
Pritoni = bdg1, filenames = bdg1-1.ttl (PSM, Top Braid version), bdg1-2.ttl (PNNL, Revit based version)
Prototype Medium Office = bdg2 filenames = bdg2-1.ttl (LBNL version), bdg2-2.ttl (PNNL version)
NIST IBAL building = bdg3 filenames = bdg3-1.ttl (NIST version)
LBNL Bldg 59 = bdg4 filenames = bdg4-1.ttl (LBNL version), bdg4-2.ttl (PNNL version)
LBNL Bldg 33 = bdg5 filenames = bdg5-1.ttl (LBNL version), bdg5-2.ttl (PNNL version)
NREL Rail Bldg = bdg6 filenames = bdg6-1.ttl (NREL version), bdg6-2.ttl (PNNL version)
Capturing remaining discussion points from the Harmonize both pritoni model branch:
From @steveraysteveray: With the agreement of the group, I suggest we make the introduction section of the .md files the same as the rdfs:comment value of the respective .ttl files, to reduce maintenance tasks.
From @steveraysteveray: Since we already use rdfs:comment as a property of each instance of a data ontology, we don't need an additional relation for a general description within each .ttl file.
From @steveraysteveray: For additional metadata to be attached to each data .ttl file/graph (associated with the ontology instance) I suggest the following properties from the dcterms ontology:
license, with just a literal value of a string satisfying ASHRAE's licensing requirements
rights holder, with some text identifying the ASHRAE legal entity
...and if we decide to do this:
contributor for any names of those who contributed to that particular graph (coded as multiple triples).
From @steveraysteveray: Regarding the schema and rule files, I suggest we do the same thing, although we will need to be careful with the rdfs:comment values if we merge them all into a single graph/file for distribution.
From @michaelpoplawskipnnl: I suggest we make the instance prefix in our models match the file name
e.g., @prefix bdg1-1: <uri>
I think bldg
is a more common abbreviation for building than bdg
.
We currently have multiple models of the same building (Pritoni) and expect to have more in the future (e.g., LBNL Building 59 and 33). We ideally need a clear way to differentiate between these models - at the file naming level, and also a way to communicate to users that they are representations of the same building - both on the model webpages, and perhaps via prefixes.
The existing approach [development_team]-example#] works, but requires the development and maintenance of an internal mapping between example# and building.
Is this sufficient, or should we develop a more intuitive approach?
One proposal:
For example,
Development team l = lbnl n = nrel p = pnnl n = nist
Pritoni = bdg1 filenames = bdg1np.ttl, bdg1p.ttl
Prototype Medium Office = bdg2 filenames = bdg2p.ttl, bdg2n.ttl (e.g., if you end up creating a model of this building using Building Motif)
NIST IBAL building = bdg3 filenames = bdg3.n.tttl
LBNL Bldg 59 = bdg4 filenames = bdg4p.ttl, bdg4l.ttl
LBNL Bldg 33 = bdg5 filenames = bdg5p.ttl, bdg5l.ttl
NREL Rail Bldg = bdg6 filenames = bdg5p.ttl, bdg5n.ttl