Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a framework for systematically comparing and evaluating four popular building ontologies (Brick Schema, RealEstateCore, Project Haystack, and Google's Digital Buildings) using both axiomatic design (TBox) and assertion-based (ABox) evaluations. The TBox evaluation uses the SQuaRE-based OQuaRE framework, finding Project Haystack and Brick Schema to be more compact, while the ABox evaluation with sample building data suggests Brick Schema and RealEstateCore offer greater completeness and expressiveness. The study concludes that no single ontology is universally suitable for integrating Linked Building Data, and explores ontology design patterns to support matching, alignment, and harmonization.
Forget a universal standard: this study reveals significant differences in completeness and expressiveness across leading building ontologies, highlighting the need for alignment strategies.
Ontologies play a critical role in data exchange, information integration, and knowledge sharing across diverse smart building applications. Yet, semantic differences between the prevailing building ontologies hamper their purpose of bringing data interoperability and restrict the ability to reuse building ontologies in real-world applications. In this paper, we propose and adopt a framework to conduct a systematic comparison and evaluation of four popular building ontologies (Brick Schema, RealEstateCore, Project Haystack and Google's Digital Buildings) from both axiomatic design and assertions in a use case, namely the Terminological Box (TBox) evaluation and the Assertion Box (ABox) evaluation. In the TBox evaluation, we use the SQuaRE-based Ontology Quality Evaluation (OQuaRE) Framework and concede that Project Haystack and Brick Schema are more compact with respect to the ontology axiomatic design. In the ABox evaluation, we apply an empirical study with sample building data that suggests that Brick Schema and RealEstateCore have greater completeness and expressiveness in capturing the main concepts and relations within the building domain. The results implicitly indicate that there is no universal building ontology for integrating Linked Building Data (LBD). We also discuss ontology compatibility and investigate building ontology design patterns (ODPs) to support ontology matching, alignment, and harmonisation.
