DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A BIM-GIS INTEGRATED INFORMATION MODEL USING RDF GRAPH DATABASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The semantic integration modeling of BIM industry foundations classes and GIS City-geographic markup language are a milestone for many applications that involve both domains of knowledge. In this paper, we propose a system design architecture, and implementation of Extraction, Transformation and Loading (ETL) workflows of BIM and GIS model into RDF graph database model, these workflows were created from functional components and ontological frameworks supporting RDF SPARQL and graph databases Cypher query languages. This paper is about full understanding of whether RDF graph database is suitable for a BIM-GIS integrated information model, and it looks deeper into the assessment of translation workflows and evaluating performance metrics of a BIM-GIS integrated data model managed in an RDF graph database, the process requires designing and developing various pipelines of workflows with semantic tools in order to get the data and its structure into an appropriate format and demonstrate the potential of using RDF graph databases to integrate, manage and analyze information and relationships from both GIS and BIM models, the study also has introduced the concepts of Graph-Model occupancy indexes of nodes, attributes and relationships to measure queries outputs and giving insights on data richness and performance of the resulting BIM-GIS semantically integrated model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".