Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Reference study of IFC software support: the GeoBIM benchmark 2019 -- Part I

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2007.10951 v2 pith:4DT7E2G5 submitted 2020-07-21 cs.DB

classification cs.DB
keywords benchmarkissuesstandardbehaviourdataevidencegeobimpart
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

IFC, buildingSMART open standard for Building Information Models, is underused with respect to its promising potential, since, according to the experience of practitioners and researchers working with BIM, issues in the standard's implementation and use prevent its effective use. Nevertheless, a systematic investigation of these issues has never been performed, and there is thus insufficient evidence for tackling the problems. The GeoBIM benchmark project is aimed at finding such evidence by involving external volunteers, reporting on tools behaviour about relevant aspects (geometry, semantics, georeferencing, functionalities), analysed and described in this paper. Interestingly, few patterns are detectable about the behaviour of different software with standardised data, and significant issues are found in their support of the standards, probably due to the very high complexity of the standard data model. This paper is in tandem with Part II, describing the results of the benchmark related to CityGML, counterpart of IFC within geoinformation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools