Comparison of Brick and Project Haystack to Support Smart Building Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enabling buildings with Smart Building applications will help to achieve the ongoing efficient commissioning of buildings, ultimately attaining peak performance in energy use and improved occupant health and comfort, at minimum cost. For these technologies to be scalable data ontology must be adopted to semantically represent data generated by building mechanical systems, acting as conduit for connection to Smart Building applications. The viability of Brick and Project Haystack ontologies, as found by industry and academia, prompted a quantitative comparison of completeness and expressiveness using a case study with an industry ontology as the baseline. Additionally, a qualitative comparison was completed using key ontology qualities outlined in literature. A recommendation of Brick is made based on results. Brick achieved higher assessment values in completeness and expressiveness achieving 59% and 100% respectively, as compared to Haystacks 43% and 96%. Additionally, Brick exhibited five of six desirable qualities, where Haystack exhibited only three. The recommendation of the appropriate ontology forms the basis for longer-term Smart Building application development, which will support innovative approaches to sustainability in building operations across scale, as well as next-generation building controls and automation strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".