INTERLINK WPD3 Report - Road OTL

Page i

INTERLINK WPD3 Report

Document name INTERLINK D8 - WPD3 Report

Version 4.0

Date 30-10-2018

Authors (company) Aonghus O’Keeffe (Roughan & O’Donovan), Editor

Matthias Weise (AEC3)

Ronald van Lanen (Royal HaskoningDHV)

Jan Erik Hoel (Trimble Solutions Sandvika)

Sander Stolk (Semmtech)

Approval for main versions

Version Name Role DateProposed 1.0 Aonghus O’Keeffe WPD3 Leader 30/08/2018

Reviewed 2.0Ingo Schmidt (pb4.0)Ciarán Carey (ROD)

WPD3 PartnerWPD3 Partner

31/08/2018

Authorised 3.0 Bart Luiten IL Project Coordinator 3/09/2018

Revised following PEB PM Review

3.1 Aonghus O’Keeffe WPD3 Leader 20/09/2018

Authorised 3.2 Bart Luiten IL Project Coordinator 21/09/2018

Accepted 4.0 PEB Client 4/10/2018

Page ii

Table of contents

Executive summary..................................................................................................................iv

Project information....................................................................................................................v

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................6

1.1 Scope of this report ....................................................................................................6

1.2 Context of Work Package D3.....................................................................................6

1.3 Objectives of WPD3 ...................................................................................................7

1.4 Test teams .................................................................................................................7

2 Test Case Planning ...........................................................................................................8

2.1 Requirements Definition.............................................................................................8

2.2 Test Case Plans.......................................................................................................11

2.3 General planning......................................................................................................16

3 Results ............................................................................................................................18

3.1 Results in the context of the asset lifecycle .............................................................18

3.2 Results summary .....................................................................................................28

4 Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................30

4.1 Primary conclusions .................................................................................................30

4.2 Detailed conclusions ................................................................................................31

4.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................34

Appendix A – References.......................................................................................................35

Appendix B – Abbreviations ...................................................................................................36

Appendix C – Requirements Traceabiltiy Matrix ....................................................................37

Appendix D – View on on Industry Business Processes, Test Use Cases and a Vision for Road Asset Information Management..............................................................................................38

Page iii

DisclaimerThe opinion stated in this report reflects the opinion of the authors and not the opinion of the Conference of European Directors of Roads – CEDR.

All intellectual property rights are owned by the INTERLINK consortium members and are protected by the applicable laws. Except where otherwise specified, all document contents are: “© INTERLINK project - All rights reserved”. CEDR and CEDR members have the right to use the intellectual property rights generated under the INTERLINK project in any form, but within the scope of this agreement. Reproduction by others is not authorised without prior written agreement.

The commercial use of any information contained in this document may require a license from the owner of that information.

All INTERLINK consortium members are committed to publish accurate and up to date information and take the greatest care to do so. However, the INTERLINK consortium members cannot accept liability for any inaccuracies or omissions nor do they accept liability for any direct, indirect, special, consequential or other losses or damages of any kind arising out of the use of this information.

AcknowledgementThis document is a deliverable of the INTERLINK project, which has received funding from the CEDR Transnational Research Programme.

Page iv

Executive summary

The Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) seeks to improve interoperability by embedding the use of building information modelling (BIM), based on open standards, into the life-cycle processes of road infrastructure. Through its transnational research programme, CEDR commissioned the INTERLINK consortium to design and test an open, scalable, future-proof, basic object-type library (OTL) for road assets. INTERLINK proposed that this European Road OTL (EUROTL) should be founded on the capabilities of Linked Data and the Semantic Web. Work Package D3 of the research project was intended for testing of a basic EUROTL being developed in a paralled work package. The testing was conducted in three cases, each over three eight-week cycles up to May 2018. The results from testing should be considered in conjunction with those from other work packages, as presented in various INTERLINK publications.

Three test cases were conducted by teams across Europe using a Linked Data platform and proof-of-concept tooling developed and/or extended for testing purposes. The test cases were conducted, each reflecting multiple use cases:

Nordic: The sharing of BIM and GIS alignment design data for a road in Jaren, Norway, the linking of road lighting data to a road network model, and the gathering of lighting data during construction.

German: NRA review of bridge design BIM data for a replacement bridge in Hamburg, automated classification of bridge asset data, and the linking of bridge inspection records to BIM objects.

Dutch: Sharing of NRA lighting asset data with a maintenance contractor, update of NRA asset databases with inspection and maintenance records, and integration of data from multiple sources and domains to improve decision-making.

The results of the testing were mostly very positive. The objectives of the testing were met, with each of the test cases demonstrating realistic business processes that could be efficiently implemented using open BIM, GIS and Linked Data / Semantic Web technologies, resulting in greater interoperability and a perceived reduction in transaction costs. The original INTERLINK research proposal assumed that applying Linked Data / Semantic Web technologies to the management of road asset information in a consistent manner across multiple European countries would provide benefits to NRAs. Numerous benefits of this application were evident from the test results, including: reduction in the risk of vendor lock-in; flexibility and scalability of interrelated, modular object-type libraries at international, national, organisational, and project levels; sharing data from various domains on the web; and automated validation of data quality based on publicly-available restrictions.

Also evident were benefits of implementing the European Road Object-Type Library framework. These included the efficient extension of existing commercially-available software to create and interrogate data structured in accordance with the modelling and linking guidance provided by INTERLINK. The benefits showed that an aim espoused in the original CEDR research call could be viably met in the medium term, i.e. that software development could be driven by a common demand from European NRAs.

There were some lessons learnt also. Firstly, consistent understanding of the technologies, at a conceptual and practical level, was difficult to achieve. Secondly, although aiming to retain a simplified approach to development and testing, the temptation throughout was to add rather than remove complexity. These act as lessons to NRAs considering implementation.

While the primary recommendations from WPD3 are provided in the INTERLINK Final Report, selected recommendations for EUROTL framework implementation by NRAs include: start small with clearly defined use cases; gradually build functionality, maintaining modularity of object-type and link set libraries; and uniquely identify manageable assets with a persistent URI, thereby enabling structured and unstructured information to be linked to that URI throughout an asset’s life-cycle.

Page v

Project information

Project title INformation managemenT for European Roads using LINKed data

Acronym - Logo INTERLINKCEDR

Topics addressed

CEDR Call 2015: Asset Information using BIM:

A. Exploration of procuring asset information

B. Exploration of BIM data structures

C. Design for common principles for object-type library

D. Design and test a basic object-type library and open BIM standards

Project Coordinator Bart LuitenTNO

Email [email protected]

Address P.O. Box 49NL-2600 AA DelftThe Netherlands

Tel. +31 88 8663122

Partners TNO Country NL

Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers (ROD)

IRL

Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV)

NL

AEC3 DE

Trimble Solutions Sandvika AS

NO

interactive instruments (ii) DE

Semmtech NL

planen-bauen 4.0 (pb4.0) DE

Start date

End date

01/09/2016

31/11/2018

Duration(in months)

24

Project Website http://www.RoadOTL.eu/

http://www.roadotl.eu/

Page 6

1 Introduction

1.1 Scope of this reportThis report details the findings of the INTERLINK project Work Package WPD3, Information Management Test Cases. As Work Packages WPD11 and WPD22 were concurrent with WPD3, this report also addresses some aspects of those work packages. In this Section 1, an overview of INTERLINK is provided, summarising the primary aims and objectives of the project and those of this report. Section 2 describes the test case planning and the relationship between WPD3 and other work packages. The results of the test cases are presented in Section 3. The final section in this report, Section 4, outlines selected recommendations and conclusions relevant to the test cases. Various appendices are provided. This report should be read in conjunction with reports from other work packages. Recommendations and conclusions for the wider project are provided in the Final Report, D.12. Appendix C lists the development and testing requirements, and which ones were met in each test case. Appendix D provides a summary view of the test cases’ relationship with the typical road asset life-cycle.

1.2 Context of Work Package D3The Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) seeks to improve interoperability by embedding the use of building information modelling (BIM), based on open standards, into the life-cycle processes of road infrastructure. Through its transnational research programme, CEDR commissioned the INTERLINK consortium to design and test an open, scalable, future-proof, basic object-type library (OTL) for road assets.

The fundamental premise of the INTERLINK proposal was that the effectiveness of this European Road OTL (EUROTL) relies on the capabilities of Linked Data and the Semantic Web. This will enable CEDR to implement a software vendor-neutral system, which is applicable to the whole life-cycle of road assets, accommodates various existing and future open data standards, and facilitates a hybrid approach of linking semantically-rich data to more traditional document-based information.

The INTERLINK project proposed a carefully structured work breakdown, consisting of interacting Work Packages, as shown in Figure 1.1. A thorough understanding of national road autorities’ business needs for information and technical data needs was elicited and documented in WPA and WPB. The principles for the EUROTL were defined in WPC. The basic EUROTL was developed in WPD1, in parallel and iteratively with: a) provision of a Linked Data platform and adaptation of necessary tooling (software) in WPD2; and b) testing of the EUROTL framework in WPD3. Coordination, dissemination and implementation of the project activities were the subject of WPE and WPF.

1 WPD1 is reported in Deliverable D.5. Summary of main results is part of Final Report D.12. (INTERLINKpub).2 The first part of WPD2 on the LD/SW platform has been reported in Deliverable D.6. The description of the proof-of-concept tools used in the test cases is part of this deliverable. Summary of main results is part of Final Report D.12. (INTERLINKpub).

Page 7

Figure 1.1 – INTERLINK work package structure

1.3 Objectives of WPD3The objective of WPD3 was to demonstrate realistic business processes showing that the proposed European Road OTL and the associated Open BIM systems work and can be efficiently implemented in practice. This was to be achieved by testing the developed and implemented basic OTL for consistency with the To-Be functional requirements from WPA and WPB and with the relevant open BIM standards. An aim for testing was to use a Linked Data platform in conjunction with existing commercially-available software tools extended with proof-of-concept add-ons. Datasets were to be provided by three national roads authorities (NRAs).

1.4 Test teamsThree test teams were formed. To suit the iterative nature of design, development and testing, the WPD1, WPD2 and WPD3 teams were integrated. ROD coordinated the testing. The three integrated teams were:

Table 1.1 – Test teams

Team PartnersNordic Trimble Solutions Sandvika, supported by TrionaGerman AEC3 (Lead)

planen-bauen 4.0interactive instruments

Dutch Royal HaskoningDHV (Lead)TNOSemmtech

Page 8

2 Test Case Planning

2.1 Requirements DefinitionRequirements for the test cases were collated from various sources, as discussed within this section. The requirements are listed in Appendix C.

2.1.1 CEDR Research Call and INTERLINK submissionThe overarching aim of the CEDR Research Call was “to improve interoperability within the European NRAs and its stakeholders by embedding the use of Building Information Management based on open standards in the Asset Management and Construction processes”. Readers should note that to meet this aim, the CEDR Call required the development of a basic road OTL and the INTERLINK consortium proposed the adoption of Linked Data and Semantic Web (LD/SW) technologies for that OTL. A requirement of the testing in WPD3 was to validate the original assumptions that these solutions to CEDR’s aim were appropriate.

2.1.2 Asset information management requirementsAsset information management requirements were elicited in WPA and WPB based on input from INTERLINK consortium partners, literature review, interviews with industry experts, and a survey. Refer to the EUROTL requirements poster from WPA/WPB Report (INTERLINKpub). 36 needs statements were validated, categorised into business needs and data needs, and prioritised based on the survey outcomes. The poster shows how the EUROTL (framework) should, ultimately, cater for all industry life-cycle stages, asset types and stakeholders. Figure 1.2 shows the typical industry life-cycle phases. A subset of the elicited requirements was chosen as requirements for the basic EUROTL development and testing in this research project. The subset was selected based on needs statement prioritisation, the interests of the test case NRAs, and the parts of the asset information life-cycle that are typically most problematic, as reflected in the as-is business process map developed in WPA/WPB (INTERLINKpub). Some of these requirements were decomposed into more specific requirements for testing purposes.

Identify need

Preliminary design

Statutory process

Detailed design & construct

Handover

Operate and maintain

Figure 1.2 – Road asset life-cycle

Page 9

2.1.3 Modelling and linking guidePrinciples for the EUROTL were defined in WPC. Refer to the WPC report (Deliverable D.4) for further details (INTERLINKpub). The principles, including a Modelling and Linking Guide, were used as test case requirements. Selected requirements include:

Closed world assumption (for application of SHACL and SPIN rules) Hybrid data formats Naming using user-friendly names, not codes Ontology-level linking (class-level linking) Instance-level linking Query-level linking (e.g. at SPARQL level)

A principal of the INTERLINK proposal and of the resulting WPC report was that hybrid data formats would be accommodated, i.e. data stored in multiple languages. As such, while the adoption of Linked Data and Semantic Web technologies was an inherent requirement for testing, an associated requirement was that some test data should remain in its original format.

2.1.4 Tooling functionalityTooling for testingA platform for publishing and retrieving both standards and asset information, based on Linked Data principles, is commonly referred to as a Linked Data publication platform. For the test cases, a Linked Data platform was provided by Semmtech as part of Work Package D2, as presented in Deliverable D.6. A requirement of the test cases was to extend existing commercially available software with add-ons to facilitate communication with the Semmtech platform. For this research project, the test cases needed careful planning to avoid extensive software development effort, which can be very time consuming. Further, an aim of WPD2 was to show that Linked Data technologies could be adopted by NRAs and their supply chains without leading to obsolescence of existing design, project management and asset management software applications. The proof-of-concept tooling was developed and/or extended iteratively along with the EUROTL framework development (Work package D1). The tooling was finalised for the final test cycle and demonstration (Deliverable D.7).

Application landscape for implemented EUROTL frameworkUse and re-use of information is essential for good project and asset management. Figure 1.3 depicts an application landscape in which an implemented EUROTL framework would be positioned. On the right, a platform is shown in which asset data, originating from various applications, can be stored, retrieved, or referenced. OTLs and specifications or guidelines can be accessed from there such that asset management applications (depicted left) can utilise the knowledge of these standards when creating or handling information on assets. Communication with the platform should be based on open standards to avoid vendor lock-in. By utilising principles of Linked Data, it is possible for the platform to have a uniform access and querying mechanism on which applications can rely.

Page 10

Figure 1.3 – Application landscape in which an implemented EUROTL would be positioned

Communication between existing (and new) applications and the platform can be facilitated with small add-ons or webservices, shown in Figure 1.3 as small grey boxes. Such components allow applications to open a line of communication using the open standards, and to interact with the platform. Existing applications thus do not necessarily need to manage all their data in RDF. Their use and databases behind them may well have proven to be valuable in managing assets already. Instead, through communicating by means of add-ons and adopting an OTL made available according to open standards, it is possible to utilize a shared vocabulary through which various bits of asset information can be identified and connected in and from various applications.

A Linked Data publication platform must adhere to certain requirements. Its functionality should be offered in the form of RESTful services (using HTTP-mechanisms for communication). It must be possible to upload (or import) Linked Data content, download (or export) it afterwards, query it, and validate it. The standardised technology for querying Linked Data are SPARQL endpoints (W3C, 2013). For validation, SPIN technology and/or SHACL technology appear most suited (W3C, 2014; W3C, 2017). Next to the publication and dissemination of the content, the platform should offer version management over updates of content. Access and use of the platform’s RESTful services should be limited to trusted parties (e.g., principal and contractors). In other words, proper authorization mechanisms need to be in place on the platform to manage and validate access rights.

Achieving balanceThe application landscape described above is that envisaged for a future implemented EUROTL framework. The test teams needed to envision this future condition when planning each uses case, while accounting for the functionality currently available in the Semmtech Linked Data platform and the proof-of-concept tooling.

Page 11

2.1.5 Use casesBest practice software development dictates that clearly defined use cases should act as the basis for functional requirements and the testing of resulting solutions. Appropriate development of the basic EUROTL required definition of such use cases. As such, the test teams detailed a small number of use cases for each test case. The primary inputs for these use cases were the asset information management requirements described above and engagement with the test case NRAs. Teams focused on defining and testing transactions that would be of value to the project, while simulating others. Application landscape constraints were considered also.Use cases were documented and reviewed in an early-stage iterative approach. A narrow range of use cases was defined, firstly because of the research nature of the work, and secondly because this “start small approach” is likely how NRAs would implement the EUROTL framework and associated systems.When validating these assumptions, a parallel can be drawn to the formal recommendations for RDF and OWL made by W3C (2004). These state that “Semantic Web Semantic Web-enabled software using RDF and OWL include:

Content creation applications: Authors can connect metadata (subject, creator, location, language, copyright status, or any other terms) with documents, making the new enhanced documents searchable

Tools for Web site management: Large Web sites can be managed dynamically according to content categories customized for the site managers

Software that takes advantage of both RDF and OWL: Organizations can integrate enterprise applications, publishing and subscriptions using flexible models

Cross-application data reuse: RDF and OWL formats are standard, not proprietary, allowing data reuse from diverse sources”

2.1.6 Top-down versus bottom-up OTL development and testingIf implemented, the future EUROTL framework will likely be large, comprised of numerous modules, each at various stages of adoption within industry. The framework will be interconnected with other international and national libraries, crossing into domains beyond road infrastructure information management. The basic OTL components developed for this research project are a subset of this future EUROTL framework. The use case definition process summarised above resulted in bottom-up development of the basic EUROTL.

Conversely, LD/SW technologies were proposed for the EUROTL. This presented top-down requirements for the basic EUROTL and, therefore, for the test cases also. To balance the top-down and bottom-up development and testing, an iterative approach was applied between WPD1 and WPD3 over three test cycles.

Refer to INTERLINK Deliverable D.5 for elaboration of the EUROTL.

2.2 Test Case PlansTest plans were prepared in summer 2017 to inform the developing Modelling and Linking Guide as part of the WPC. The plans were refined and updated throughout before and after each test cycle. Following are the test case plans, provided in tabular format and updated to reflect the completed testing.

Page 12

2.2.1 Nordic test caseINTERLINK Test Case Lead Organisation

Trimble Solutions Sandvika

INTERLINK Test Case Leader

Jan Erik Hoel

INTERLINK Test Case Partner Organisation primary contact

Lars Wikström

NRA(s) Statens Vegvesen & TrafikverketBrief description of the use cases being investigated (only selected aspects were tested, others reflect pre- or post-condition data)

The test case covers multiple use cases for asset data associated with a selected road in Norway:- Designer exports reference line in IFC Alignment and InfraGML

formats and in accordance with national/NRA classification system- Asset manager receives alignment geometry data, including its

relationship with the road network model, into the national asset management database

- Contractor records lighting data. (Focus on lighting data based on the engagement from Statens Vegvesen.)

- Modelling data requirements for different project phases: design phase, construction phase and handover to asset management

- Asset manager associates alignment geometry and network model with asset data, e.g. lighting column data, for analysis purposes

Value that the use case provides in a European context

- Improve the data flow between designers, road owners and contractors by using open and non-proprietary standards

- Relate asset data to a network model used for road operations- Enable using the standards best suited for each job- Data availability more based on user needs and less based on tool

restrictions- Improve standardization and data flow within the road owner

organization- Re-use of other international and national work- Possibility to procure services over borders may lead to cheaper

services- Enable modelling of data requirements for different project phases- Ability to link alignment data with other data (e.g. pavement

condition, accident records) can add value, facilitating continuous improvement of design standards

Relationship between the use case and NRA policy or future planning

Trafikverket are implementing CoClass and aim to extend links with international standards.Statens Vegvesen are aiming to use BIM for more asset management projects.

Page 13

Where in the WPA/WPB as-is business process model the use case applies(the process model is available at this link; activities shown in red are where significant opportunity for improvement was identified)

The use cases cover some of the red boxes and arrows from works contractor to NRA project manager to NRA asset manager to maintenance contractor back to NRA asset manager.

Transactions and NRA data for test cycles

1. Link as-designed alignment data in various open standards-based formats to road network model

2. Link lighting column data to road network model

Software for test cycles - Novapoint- TNE (Triona's asset management server)- NVDB (Norway)- Semmtech semantic platform- TopBraid Composer- Pre-existing and new user interface apps for uploading data and

running SPARQL queries Selected existing data standards and ontologies

- Proposed Norwegain standard for road lighting- ISO/TC 211 standards- InfraGML- IFC Alignment

2.2.2 German test caseINTERLINK Test Case Lead Organisation

AEC3


Matthias Weise

INTERLINK Test Case Partner Organisation

Interactive Instruments, planen-bauen 4.0


Arnold Vogelsang, Jan Tulke

NRA(s) Freie und Hansestadt HamburgLandesbetrieb Straßen, Brücken und Gewässer

https://roadotl.geosolutions.nl/publications/

Page 14

Brief description of the use cases being investigated (only selected aspects were tested, others reflect pre- or post-condition data)

The test case covers multiple use cases for asset data associated with an existing bridge and a replacement bridge in Hamburg:- Asset owner provides as-built data regarding the existing bridge

and road alignment to designers- Designers prepare models, drawings, calculations and

specifications for the new bridge and alignment- Designers handover design output to NRA, addressing asset

information requirements- NRA (or maintenance contractor) conducts bridge inspection and

records the results centrally.Value that the use case provides in a European context

- Improves the collation and searchability of relevant asset data from the outset of the design process

- Improves the data flow between designers, NRA project manager, contractors and NRA asset manager

- Identification of relevant relationships between existing national and international data standards

- Demonstrates that sharing of new and historical data in a LD/SW system can enable relevant NRA stakeholders to engage with the data from their perspective

Relationship between the use case and NRA policy or future planning

The use case is supporting the NRA in using new BIM technology and in setting up information sharing processes. The use case is part of a BIM pilot study in Germany. The main interest is in demonstrating the application of information requirements for selected asset types (bridge) using established, open BIM standards and its combined use based on model linking approaches.

Where in the WPA/WPB as-is business process model the use case applies(the process model is available at this link; activities shown in red are where significant opportunity for improvement was identified)

The focus is on the relationship between the NRA's asset information requirements, the designers’ systems, and the NRA’s systems.


1. Link bridge object(s) (BIM/IFC) to associated information and tag with relevant classification according to German ASB-Ing standard

2. Link bridge object(s) to associated alignment data (based on basic EUROTL specifications derived from INSPIRE)

3. Link bridge object(s), bridge bearings, to condition records4. Find, view and interrogate BIM and asset object data in standard

IFC viewer application (DESITE was selected as example)


Page 15

Software for test cycles - Revit (by bridge designers)- SIB-Bauwerke- TT-SIB- DESITE BIM-IFC Viewer- Semmtech semantic platform- Pre-existing and new user interface apps for uploading data and

running SPARQL queries- Available ifcOWL and okstraOWL mapping solutions - Tool for filtering IFC datasets

Selected existing data standards and ontologies

- IFC- ifcOWL- OKSTRA- okstraOWL- ASB-Ing- Basic EUROTL (reuse of INSPIRE network data)

2.2.3 Dutch test caseINTERLINK Test Case Lead Organisation

Royal HaskoningDHV


Ronald van Lanen

INTERLINK Test Case Partner Organisation

Semmtech, TNO


Sander Stolk, Michel Böhms

NRA(s) RijkswaterstaatBrief description of the use cases being investigated (only selected aspects were tested, others reflected pre- or post-condition data)

The test case covers multiple use cases for asset data associated with an existing road in South of the Netherlands:- Works contractor hands over as-built pavement, barrier and lighting

column data- Maintenance contractor hands over inspection and repair records- Asset owner creates links between as-builts, inspection and repair

records, and other relevant Linked Data, e.g. drone data and road network

- Asset owner analyses Linked Data to improve major maintenance programme decision making

Value that the use case provides in a European context

- Improve the data flow between road owner and contractors by using open and non-proprietary standards

- Demonstrates improvements in collaboration and reduction in transaction costs in a LD system supported by one or more OTLs

- Demonstrates that sharing of new and historical data in a LD/SW system can enable relevant NRA stakeholders to engage with the data from their perspective

- Integrating and interrogating data from multiple domainsRelationship between the use case and NRA policy or future planning

RWS-policy: Now RWS uses COINS for data-transfer (periods of 2 months) and notifications are provided by VISI. With this Linked Data approach, improved collaboration with contractors and different stakeholders of RWS is possible.

Page 16

Where in the WPA/WPB as-is business process model the uses case apply(the process model is available at this link; activities shown in red are where significant opportunity for improvement was identified)

See business process model D3 NL:- use of the OTL linked to the CB-NL for Asset Information- handover to contractor- handover to client


1. Link lighting column inspection records and/or condition data to a single instance of a road segment

2. Add more road segments and access data via GIS software3. Link repair and/or performance records to road segments4. Add another asset type, e.g. barrier, lighting5. Add data validation6. Add links to third-party data, e.g. droneflyzones

Software for test cycles - Exchange software to export COINS data- Inspection app- Semmtech semantic platform- Pre-existing and new user interface apps for uploading data and

running SPARQL queries- ESRI ArcGIS

Selected existing data standards and ontologies

- INSPIRE- GML- COINS- Basic EUROTL- RWS OTL- NEN2767-4

2.3 General planning

2.3.1 Relationship with the vision for the EUROTLThe tested use cases are related to the INTERLINK consortium’s vision for how road asset information could be managed in the future. The use cases are summarised in a single table in Appendix D, which compares the cases to a vision for future application of international standards and the EUROTL framework, and shows the use cases’ relationship with high-level industry life-cycle business processes. This comparison helped the test teams to converge towards a consistent approach during the iterative testing.


Page 17

2.3.2 Relationship with the asset information life-cycleThe relationship between the test cases and the asset information life-cycle is reflected in Table 2.1. This is elaborated in the test case results in Section 3.

Table 2.1 – Asset life-cycle stages addressed by the test cases

Nordic Test Case

German Test Case

Dutch Test Case

Asset information requirements

Preliminary design and statutory approvalProcurement and detailed design

Construction

Handover (from construction or maintenance contract)

Operation and maintenance

2.3.3 Requirements traceability matrixThe use of a requirements traceability matrix enabled the work package participants to plan and track which requirements would be met by which team in each of the three test cycles. The requirements described in Section 2.1 were classified using a form of MOSCOW analysis as shown in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3 – MOSCOW analysis of requirements

Classification DescriptionInherent Signifies that the requirement is inherently met through the test cases or

other work packages without requiring explicit verification.Broken down Requirement is resolved into more specific requirements.Must have Must be addressed in all test cases.Should have Should be addressed in each test case but must be addressed in at

least one.Could have Could be addressed in one or more test cases.Won't have Will not be addressed in any test cases.

The completed matrix is provided in Appendix C. Green cells indicate in which test cycle and by which team a requirement was met. Red cells indicate that a requirement was planned to be met. These results are discussed further in Section 3.

Page 18

3 Results

The results from testing the basic European Road OTL framework are presented in this section. The tests were performed following the test plans described in the previous section.

3.1 Results in the context of the asset lifecycleThe results are stated in the context of the INTERLINK consortium’s vision for the future of road asset information management throughout the asset life-cycle. The test results are mostly positive, but some lessons were learnt also. Note that testing was conducted over a 24-week period and covered many data sets, ontologies, link sets, and software extensions. This section provides a summary of the test results rather than a detailed description of the testing. Refer to INTERLINK Deliverable D.5 for details of the basic EUROTL framework.

3.1.1 NRA requirements publicationPublication by NRAs of asset information requirements enables industry stakeholders, including software companies, to adopt those requirements in a consistent manner over time. Information requirements based on internationally standardised processes increases interoperability across national boundaries and increases the likelihood of requirements compliance. The testing envisaged the situation where an NRA adopts LD/SW technologies internally for asset information management, and publishes requirements for the supply chain to follow, including use of the EUROTL framework. The testing recognised the requirement for hybrid solutions, facilitating adoption of LD/SW technologies in parallel with other appropriate technologies.

Table 3.1 – Selected test case ontologies and link sets

Level Nordic Case German Case Dutch CaseInternational ISO 19148 (linear

referencing) IFC Alignment

IFC 4x1 ISO 19148

GeoSPARQL ISO 19148

European INSPIRE Network INSPIRE Network INSPIRE NetworkEUROTL AM4INFRA (lighting)

Location Baseline

AM4INFRA (structure) Location

AM4INFRA (lighting) PROV-O

National SOSI OKSTRA NEN2767-4 CB-NL COINS

NRA Lighting (+ link set to EUROTL)

ASB-ING (+ link set to IFC)

EIR

RWS OTL Condition (+ link sets

to RWS OTL and EUROTL)

Contractor Damages (RI-ERH-ING, RI-EBW-PRÜF)

Inspection (+ link sets to RWS OTL and EUROTL)

Extensive discussion was held within the research consortium on the need for developing and testing an asset type classification system as part of the EUROTL framework, including both asset taxonomy (types) and meronomy (parts). ISO 12006-2 provides a framework for such

Page 19

classification systems but does not provide a definitive system. Various national and NRA systems are available, e.g. CoClass, CB-NL and UniClass 2015. However, some functionality and semantics within those systems can be quite specific at a national level and achieving harmonisation in the short- to medium-term is considered unlikely. Also, the flexibility of LD/SW technology means that harmonisation of asset classification is not necessary because link sets can be developed over time to formalise and publicise accepted object-type relationships across national and organisational boundaries.

A Horizon 2020 project running in parallel with INTERLINK developed a road and rail asset management data dictionary (AM4INFRA, 2017) with a top-level taxonomy containing nine categories of assets. This was considered to follow the 100% rule for asset breakdown structures (Dentten, 2018) and was adopted as the top level of physical asset classification in the test cases. It is included in the basic EUROTL framework. Below that level, relevant subsets of existing national and NRA classification systems were adopted (e.g. ASB-ING).

Ontologies and link sets acquired, modified or developed as part of WPD1 were added to the Semmtech platform. Separate ‘data rooms’ were maintained for each test case. Selected test case-specific ontologies were developed and are presented in a series of figures below. For test purposes, these are considered as published by an NRA. In each case the ontology has a relationship with the basic EUROTL framework.

Figure 3.1 shows details for a Norwegian Lighting object type. This object type was derived by the test team from ongoing work in Statens Vegvesen (the Norwegian NRA) on the modelling of lighting asset data using UML class diagrams. The Norwegian Lighting object type is a sub-class of the EUROTL lighting object type.

Figure 3.2 shows level of detail ontologies for lighting in the Nordic test case. These ontologies define computer-readable requirements for information delivery at design, construction, handover and operations phases.

Figure 3.3. shows details the ASB-ING ontology for classification of structural assets. The ontology was automatically generated for the German test case and includes 9,500 object types.

Figure 3.4 shows details of an asset condition ontology, specifically the safety classification. This ontology was derived by the test team from German guidelines for maintenance of civil engineering works (RI-ERH-ING). The safety class is a sub-class of the EUROTL condition object type.

Figure 3.5 shows details of the Dutch Temporal Unit, which was available from the RWS-OTL. The Dutch test team used this for defining constraints in an inspection ontology.

Interestingly, the figures show ontologies modelled using a consistent modelling language and style but edited or visualised in different applications – a simple demonstration of a benefit of open standards.

Page 20

Figure 3.1 – Properties, associations and cardinality for the Norwegian lighting object type

LightingPoint- Lighting Purpose (enum)- POSITION (interval)

100

Figure 3.2 – Level of development ontologies for lighting in Nordic case

Page 21

Figure 3.3 – Generation of ASB-ING ontology in German case using data from NRA

Figure 3.4 – Properties and annotations for the German asset safety classification

Page 22

Figure 3.5 – Properties and annotations for the Dutch Temporal Unit

All three test cases assume that at procurement stage the NRA specifies the use of LD/SW technologies within the contract documents, i.e. for a capital works contract in the Nordic and German cases, and for a term maintenance contract in the Dutch case.

3.1.2 Procurement and designThe Nordic and German test cases envisaged a situation where LD/SW technologies are implemented by the NRA for definition of the NRA’s information requirements at tender stage and for validation of subsequently received design information. The situations were different in each case.

Procurement and design in the Nordic test caseThe tender and design phases of the test case are represented in Figure 3.6. For a new road in Jaren, Norway (recently completed in reality) the test team simulated processes for the design of the alignment and construction of lighting, with the following activities and results:

Alignment design was simulated using Trimble Novapoint (using design data from the Norwegian Roads Database).

Alignment design data in InfraGML format was converted to RDF using Triona TNE and uploaded to the Semmtech system, simulating submission to the NRA for review.

InfraGML alignment data in RDF was converted to IFC Alignment RDF using the Semmtech system, simulating conversion by an NRA to facilitate pre-existing software systems. (As a test, the RDF alignment data was imported to Novapoint and compared to the original alignment model, resulting in a correct match.)

Lighting design and submission was simulated by converting existing lighting data from Jaren into RDF (compliant with the level of development ontology for early design phase) and adding it to the Semmtech system.

Design review by the NRA was simulated in Novapoint by querying and retrieving the NRA network data (compliant with the EUROTL Transport Network ontology), IFC Alignment RDF data and the lighting design data from the Semmtech system. (See Figure 3.7.)

Page 23

The above results were valuable for testing and improving the basic EUROTL functionality and for demonstrating possible application in a Nordic context.

1) Tender phase

Novapoint and other design tools

Environment, AM & BIM in traditional databases

Environment, AM & BIM in trippelstores

Implemented prototype in Novapoint

Implemented prototype

2) Design phase

Novapoint and other design tools

Quadri and other traditional BIM databases

BIM trippelstore

Replicate

Simulated this with TNE export functionality

Design requirements:OTL with restrictions

Figure 3.6 – Tender and design phase test conditions in Nordic case

Figure 3.7 – Novapoint display of network, alignment and lighting data from triple store

Procurement and design in the German test caseFor the design phase, the German test case focussed on the design of a replacement bridge for the existing BW533 bridge in Hamburg, shown in Figure 3.8. The replacement bridge design is part of a 5km highway improvement scheme, which is a pilot for applying BIM processes in design and construction of road infrastructure. The actual project included employer’s information requirements that specified the handover of an IFC model of the bridge and associated classification data in accordance with ASB-ING.

The test team simulated the processes for submission of the bridge model by the design consultant and review of the model by the NRA with the following activities and results:

Design requirements:OTL with restrictions

Page 24

The designer submitted an IFC STEP format model (exported from Revit) to the NRA for review. (Note that at the time of this research IFC Bridge was not published. As such, many of the bridge objects were represented as proxy objects in IFC.)

The IFC model was converted to RDF (using a tool provided by buildingSMART / W3C), simulating in-house conversion by the NRA. Initially this significantly increased the size of the data set as all data was converted, including geometric data. Subsequently, geometric data was filtered prior to conversion, resulting in a significant reduction in file.

SPIN rules were created to automatically generate triples in the Semmtech system between the IFC instances and the ASB-ING ontology based on the objects’ ifcOWL type and/or property. This simulated the ability of the NRA to automatically verify that relevant classification data had been provided at design stage as per the level of development requirements. Refer to Figures 3.9 and 3.10.

Object properties were queried in the Semmtech system returning a list of relevant objects, their URI, Revit GUID, and ASB-ING classification. Objects were then visualised using an IFC viewer, in which the GUID was used to identify relevant objects.

Figure 3.8 – German test case existing bridge in Hamburg due for replacement

Road network data BIM data Asset mgmt. data

EUROTL IFC (OWL) (relevant subset)

OKSTRA (OWL) + damage categories

Figure 3.9 – Relationships between data types and data formats in German test case

Page 25

Figure 3.10 – IFC STEP to IFC RDF converter and IFC viewer with objects selected

The test case for the design stage showed that a smooth transition to LD/SW technologies is possible using existing commercially available software tools, thereby availing of the advantages of both LD and non-LD functionalities. This is considered more appropriate that a full shift to LD/SW, which would likely meet significant resistance within NRAs and the supply chain.

3.1.3 Construction and handoverConstruction and handover in the Nordic test caseIn the Nordic test case, a lighting fixture data sheet in PDF was linked to a group of light fixture objects, representing the recording by a contractor of as-built details. Although not part of the test case, the PDF could be linked to multiple fixtures at the instance level, class level or property level, e.g. location. This record could then be queried easily, searching by location, chainage, lighting column number or by other means, while avoiding duplication of data within an asset management system.

This envisaged the situation where a works contractor would use a web-based collaboration system for managing construction stage information, and that the system would have a Linked Data platform component that enables asset information (e.g. drawings, models, data sheets, inspection records, materials approvals) to be linked to a URI representing an asset or group of assets.

3.1.4 Operation and maintenanceThe German and Dutch test cases addressed the operation and maintenance phase of road assets. They envisaged the situation where NRAs, inspectors and maintenance contractors have implemented LD/SW technologies in their asset management systems.

Operations and maintenance in the German test caseFigure 3.9 shows the relationship in the German test case between network data, IFC data and condition data (damage data) to the OKSTRA standard. The test case simulated the inspection and recording of an existing bridge using a combination of LD and non-LD, with the following activities and results:

Page 26

The road network local to the bridge was modelled in accordance with the basic EUROTL framework. As such, the bridge location was easily visualised with background mapping by the Nordic team using Novapoint, shown in Figure 3.11.

The bridge was assigned a URI related to the NRA’s bridge number, BW533. This enabled information about the bridge to be linked to that URI, including the IFC STEP format dataset, the IFC RDF dataset, and the bridge’s location in the road network.

Inspection reports including photos were linked to IFC RDF objects following the condition ontology discussed in Section 3.1.1 and then visualised in the Desite MD IFC viewer, shown in Figure 3.12. (3D IFC geometry is not required for future application of this approach as 3D visualisation is not necessary. Each bridge element would require a URI and classification, which could be assigned by various manual or automated means at the time of inspection or subsequently.)

Figure 3.11 – German test case network location displayed in Novapoint

Figure 3.12 – Inspection records associated with 3D IFC objects in the German test bridge

Page 27

Operations and maintenance in the Dutch test caseThe primary focus of the test case was the operation and maintenance phase. The test team envisaged the situation where a maintenance contractor has access through a Linked Data platform to current information regarding: the road network; the assets covered by the maintenance contract (lighting for the test); road space and road closure bookings; and drone exclusion zone boundaries. Each of these data sets was added to the Semmtech platform for test purposes.

Relationships between the datasets were identified, either explicitly using triples and the available object-type libraries, or implicitly by means such as geographic proximity using SPARQL (with ArcGIS functionality). Figure 3.13 indicates the range of ontologies used in the test case, including international ontologies as part of the EUROTL framework, national ontologies from COINS, NRA ontologies from Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) and contractor ontologies for maintenance operations.

Figure 3.13 – Relationships between ontologies for the Dutch test case

In typical term maintenance contracts, a contractor provides inspection and repair records to the NRA periodically, e.g. once every two months, and this data is used for tracking contractor performance and for NRA decision making. The test case demonstrated how a maintenance contractor could access current NRA asset data, confirm road space booking permissions, record inspection and repair results using a Linked Data-enabled mobile web-application (developed in Python for the test) and push prompt updates to the NRA system. A screenshot of the inspection app is shown in Figure 3.14.

The test envisaged how the contractor could provide those updates with a “for information” status, while submitting every two months the COINS dataset to satisfy contractual obligations. Advantageously, that COINS dataset would be collated as the contractor continues its daily maintenance business. Further, the test case included SPIN restrictions for validation of data compliance with NRA requirements, thereby reducing the risk of incomplete datasets being

Page 28

received by the NRA. These benefits were successfully demonstrated, while using open data standards that minimise vendor lock-in for both the NRA and the maintenance contactor.

Figure 3.14 – App developed for reading and writing asset inspection data

3.2 Results summarySummaries of the individual test case results are provided in this section. A general summary is provided in the conclusions in Section 4.

3.2.1 Nordic test caseThe results of the Nordic test case were very positive. The case provided a much deeper understanding of LD/SW technology application for the test team, who brought with them a detailed understanding of BIM, GIS and systems engineering software. Active, constructive engagement from Statens Vegvesen (Norwegian NRA) provided important steering for the direction of testing.

The team found the extension of Novapoint relatively easy compared to the value gained. The case showed the benefits of using the LD/SW approach compared to traditional data storage and handover processes. These benefits are timely in Norway and Sweden, where the application of BIM, GIS and systems engineering is mature in design, construction and asset management, but where transaction costs remain high at handover. Developing test case ontologies (e.g. lighting) required multiple iterations and careful consideration. However, the workload required to complete this was as expected.

Suggested future developments within Trimble and Statens Vegvesen include overlaying Quadri (the BIM server in Novapoint) and the Norwegian Roads Database (NVDB) with Linked Data platforms containing NRA, national and international ontologies to support more effective handover and use of asset management data.

3.2.2 German test caseThe results of the German test case are positive. The switch to BIM-based working, which is happening in Germany currently, presents an opportunity to commence staged adoption of LD/SW technologies, particularly considering the well-established German standards and practices for asset data management.

Page 29

The object typing concept implemented in the German test case can be applied in many use cases. The principle is always the same, thus the same tools and algorithms can be used in different scenarios, e.g. link to element types, damage categories, employer’s information requirements and classification systems. If properly defined by the user (as shown in the AEC3 BIMQ tool for managing information requirements and mappings to data structures), then everything can be generated automatically. This means that end-users have full control and can easily configure necessary links.

3.2.3 Dutch test caseThe Dutch test case presented an interesting challenge – to validate and demonstrate the benefits of an EUROTL framework in a country which has the most mature use of LD/SW technologies in road asset management. The first component of the challenge was to comprehend the different modelling styles and data structures used in the existing object-type libraries available in the Netherlands. This reinforces the recommendation of INTERLINK for NRAs to adopt a consistent modelling style as presented in the WPC Modelling and Linking Guide (Deliverable D.4). Two interesting benefits of EUROTL framework implementation in the Netherlands were reflected in the test cases; firstly, the opportunity to share LD/SW knowledge and guide LD/SW development internationally; and secondly, the subsequent benefit of increasing competition in the LD/SW-enabled software market.

With experience in the use of traditional technologies for the management of asset maintenance information, the test team saw benefits in the use of LD/SW technologies for:

integrating information across multiple domains; and for reducing the transaction costs associated with the handover of information from the

NRA to the maintenance contractor and vice versa.

3.2.4 Application of the EUROTL The core EUROTL is comprised of multiple ontologies which meet separate, consistent functional requirements. Table 3.2 identifies in which test cases the various ontologies in the core EUROTL were applied. This table should be read in conjunction with Appendix D, which shows the relationship between the test cases, the industry business processes and a vision for the EUROTL framework application.

The core EUROTL and supporting documentation is available at www.roadotl.eu/publications. The test ontologies and link sets are available at that location also.

Table 3.2 – Application of the core EUROTL ontologies in the test cases

Nordic Test Case

German Test Case

Dutch Test Case

Provenance

Quantities and units

Decomposition

Baselines and suitability

Location and shape

Activities

Linking documents

Functional units and technical solutions

http://www.roadotl.eu/publications

Page 30

4 Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Primary conclusionsThree primary conclusions are drawn from the testing of the basic EUROTL during WPD3.

Conclusion 1 Data IntegrationNRAs struggle to integrate data across various systems, asset life-cycle stages and domains. Testing showed how NRAs can integrate such data using LD/SW technologies – thereby reducing transaction costs and supporting more effective decision making. Importantly, testing showed that this could be achieved while continuing to benefit from earlier NRA and supply chain investments in software systems, data formats, classification systems and training.

Conclusion 2 Semantic RichnessTesting showed how the meaning (semantics) of new and existing road asset data in numerous data formats could be extended by relating the data to ontologies. In the final test cycle, the use of ontologies from the basic EUROTL across multiple test cases and asset types showed how a consistent international approach could support both human and computer interpretation of data in an economically-viable fashion.

Conclusion 3 Modularity and ScalabilityStep-by-step extension of functionality, combining LD/SW with traditional technologies, was shown to be possible during testing. This was achieved relatively quickly and at reasonably low cost. Test teams mutually benefitted from applying consistent modelling approaches while sharing ontologies, tooling and lessons learnt. Further, the power of LD/SW avoided a costly “battle of concepts” across life-cycle stages and jurisdictions. This shows how NRAs can gradually implement the INTERLINK approach, achieve short-term benefits, and future-proof their systems.

The modularity and scalability of the INTERLINK approach is indicated in Figure 4.1 and evident in the EUROTL documentation.

Page 31

Figure 4.1 – EUROTL framework indicating the modularity of LD/SW technologies (refer to INTERLINK deliverable D.5 for further information)

4.2 Detailed conclusions

More detailed conclusions from the testing of the basic EUROTL during WPD3 are collated into four headings, as follows below.

Outcomes versus objectives

A review of the testing results against the WPD3 objective provided in Section 1.3 shows that the objective was met. The cases demonstrated that realistic business processes could be efficiently implemented in practice using open BIM and LD/SW standards, resulting in greater interoperability.

The completed requirements traceability matrix in Appendix C shows that almost all the requirements identified at the outset of testing were met.

Evident benefits of LD/SW technologies

Flexible object typing mechanism on class and instance level, thereby giving multi-criteria object classification according to:

o Different Standards/OTLs (IFC, InfraGML, OKSTRA, RWS-OTL, ASB-ING, …)o Requirements (particularly level of development ontologies)o Property settings (e.g. translating damage dimensions into damage types)

The facility to share data without having to duplicate and exchange it, thereby reducing transaction costs and minimising risk.

Linking RDF and non-RDF data, e.g.:o The facility to classification of IFC data that is not contained in the IFC dataset

itself.o The ability to connect historic information (test datasets provided by NRAs) to

new information easily. The ability to relate asset information to a road network model explicitly (by link

sequence, start and end) or implicitly (e.g. by proximity with GeoSPARQL).

Page 32

Definition of functional unit and technical solution, thereby pre-setting slots and modules to be fulfilled or replaced at a later stage in the asset information life cycle.

Results based on combination of existing tools (ontologies, converter tools, model view definition approach, etc.)

Linking attributes, object types and classes to a human and/or computer readable definition of same.

Linking data in multiple formats, both unstructured (e.g. PDF, JPG) and structured (LD/SW).

Possibility to update a Linked Data platform to exchange and update asset information through another non-Linked Data platform, e.g. GIS data from ESRI ArcGIS online

Web-based information accessibility for all stakeholders (subject to appropriate access rights) using open standards.

Associations with cardinality.

The modularity and scalability of LD/SW solutions, as evident from the testing, is a clear benefit of this approach over traditional technologies such a relational databases and XML databases. This view of LD/SW technology is expressed by various INTERLINK partners who have extensive experience with other technologies, both on the software development side and on the user side. Of course, existing technologies can be used to meet many of the identified industry information needs, and many NRAs retain in-house resource capabilities for managing systems utilising these existing technologies. However, experience in other industries has shown that LD/SW technologies can be used to extend the functionality of existing databases and to integrate data across disparate systems more economically and sustainable than via traditional approaches. Note that a detailed comparison of using existing technology versus LD/SW was not conducted as part of this research.

Evident benefits of an EUROTL framework

The ability of the test teams to share and benefit from best practice, including ontologies, link sets and tooling, was an indicator of the likely future benefit of implementing a EUROTL framework across multiple jurisdictions.

Integration into the commercially-available software landscape, e.g. Novapoint, ArcGIS and Desite MD, without extensive programming effort, and use of such software to interrogate data from multiple test cases, e.g. Novapoint for the network model in each case. This indicates that:

o Software companies could adopt the LD/SW approach with small, modular modifications to existing BIM, GIS and system engineering applications (supplemented by a Linked Data platform) if the demand is driven by enough NRAs in a consistent fashion;

o Vendor lock-in could be reduced by enabling open standard-based asset data to be created, stored and interrogated by a wider range of applications;

o NRA costs could be reduced because the transaction costs through the value chain would be reduced.

Tooling from various sources was used during testing to generate, store, share and interrogate Linked Data, including: Novapoint from Trimble, one of the three large multinationals in the CAD/BIM industry; ArcGIS, the most widespread GIS tool internationally; Laces from Semmtech, a small-to-medium size enterprise; and bespoke proof-of-concept add-ons. This shows how implementation of the EUROTL framework could reduce the power of major software vendors by enabling a wider range of developers to provide specific solutions based on consistent LD/SW technology and reduce their cost of market entry. (Existing large models, e.g. IFC, make cost of entry high, thereby increasing the power of incumbents.)

Many of the features of the EUROTL framework used during testing are not specific to the management of road asset information, e.g. provenance metadata, network modelling, IFC and GML. An implemented EUROTL framework that includes cross-

Page 33

domain modules will increase the likelihood that software vendors support the technology.

Benefits were evident throughout the asset life-cycle, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 – Activities in the typical as-is industry business process model for which benefits were evident from testing (circled yellow)3

Lessons learnt and problems encountered

The research consortium experienced issues with consistent knowledge and understanding of LD/SW between teams, i.e. teams had different understanding of the same issues, both at a conceptual and practical level. This could have implications for NRAs if the concepts are not clearly defined and controlled by competent staff from an early stage.

Simplicity of approach was required from the outset and was targeted in planning. However, this was difficult across multiple jurisdictions, standards, modelling styles, asset types and software systems. Further simplification should have been sought.

The OAuth authorisation control between the Semmtech system and external software systems was difficult to implement and caused some early delays.

3 The business process model is taken from the WPA & WPB Report (INTERLINKpub). It is legible on screen and at A3 print. The report states: “The [modelled] scenario assumes higher BIM-maturity countries, outsourced maintenance operations with fixed-term contracts, design-and-build construction contracts, and all assets being owned by the model NRA. Activities, data and linkages shown in green represent where information flow is well managed and uses either open data exchange formats or structured data management processes. Those shown in red represent where there is significant opportunity for improvement. Of course, the figure is a highly-simplified representation of a complex system of interacting businesses processes and stakeholders. The figure is not intended to represent any one NRA studied during this research, but merely typical conditions.”

Page 34

The work package team planned to meet various requirements at the outset of testing. Some were not met, while other additional requirements were met. (See Appendix C for details.)

4.3 RecommendationsThe primary recommendations from WPD3 are provided in the INTERLINK Final Report, Deliverable D.12. However, following are selected recommendations for ease of reference:

NRAs should start run small test cases for the adoption of LD/SW technologies for asset information management.

Test cases should be clearly defined prior to commencement, with use case that will provide value to the NRA.

Gradually build object-type libraries with modular components. Gradually build the capabilities of staff, supply chain and software, and recognise that

software industry engagement is required. Do not specify LD for all data, i.e. not LD for LD’s sake. Other data formats and storage

solutions serve their purpose well in many cases (e.g. IFC STEP for 3D data, relational database for large dynamic datasets).

Uniquely identify manageable assets with a persistent URI, thereby enabling structured and unstructured information to be linked to that URI throughout an asset’s life-cycle.

Semantic web technology reduces the need for large hierarchical classification systems.

Page 35

Appendix A – References

AM4INFRA (2017). D3.1, Asset Data Dictionary. Available at: http://www.am4infra.eu/downloads/. Accessed on 28 November 2017.

Dentten, R. (2018). Better Information Management to Optimise Whole Life Business Decisions. Available at: https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/better-information-management-to-optimise-whole-life-business-decisions/. Accessed on 27 July 2018.

Gielingh, W. (2008). Theory for Modelling Complex and Dynamic Systems. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 13, pg. 421.

INTERLINKpub. INTERLINK publications. Available at: www.roadotl.eu/publications. Accessed on 28 August 2018.

W3C (2004). World Wide Web Consortium Issues RDF and OWL Recommendations, W3C Press Release. Available at: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/sws-pressrelease. Accessed on 28 August 2018.

W3C (2013). SPARQL 1.1 Query Language, W3C Recommendation. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/. Accessed on 27 July 2018.

W3C (2014). SPIN: Modelling Vocabulary, W3C Member Submission. Available at: http://spinrdf.org/spin.html. Accessed on 27 July 2018.

W3C (2017) Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), W3C Recommendation. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. Accessed on 27 July 2018.

http://www.am4infra.eu/downloads/

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/better-information-management-to-optimise-whole-life-business-decisions/

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/better-information-management-to-optimise-whole-life-business-decisions/

http://www.roadotl.eu/publications

http://www.w3.org/2004/01/sws-pressrelease

https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

http://spinrdf.org/spin.html

https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

Page 36

Appendix B – Abbreviations

Abbreviation Explanation [optional context]BIM Building Information Modelling/ManagementCAD Computer Aided DesignCB-NL ConceptenBibliotheek-NL (Concept Library for the Dutch construction

industry) [NL]CEDR Conference of European Directors of Roads (the Platform for cooperation

between National Road Authorities)COINS Constructieve Objecten en de INtegratie van Processen en Systemen [NL]EUROTL European Road Object-Type LibraryGIS Geographic Information SystemGML Geography Markup Language [OGC]GUID Globally unique identifierIFC Industry Foundation Classes [bSI]INTERLINK INformation managemenT for European Roads using LINKed data [CEDR]ISO International Standardization OrganizationLD Linked Data [W3C]NRA National Road AuthorityOKSTRA Objekt katalog für das Straßen- und Verkehrswesen [DE]OTL Object-Type LibraryOWL Web Ontology Language [W3C]PEB Project Executive Board [CEDR]RDF Resource Description Framework [W3C]SW Semantic Web [W3C]UML Unified modelling languageURI Uniform resource identifierW3C World Wide Web ConsortiumWP Work Package [INTERLINK]XML eXtensible Markup Language [W3C]

Page 37

Appendix C – Requirements Traceabiltiy Matrix

INTERLINK WPD3 Requirements Traceability Matrix

WPD Objectives (agreed with Benno Koehorst on 10/01/2018)

i)X

ii)P

iii)Y

iv)

Inherent

Broken down

Must have

Should have

Could have

Won't have

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Business Needs Statements

A1 Implementation of new standards for road asset information management

should be supported by change management processes, e.g.

communication, training, guidance.

12 I

A2 Asset information management should facilitate a gradual transition of

existing asset information to smart information (semantically rich

information).

17 B

A3 Show how to translate non-LD (e.g. IFC STEP, tabular data) to LD

following the D4 requirements.

SY Y

A4 Link LD asset object to unstructured data, e.g. PDF or photohraph. M Y Y Y

A5 Add semantic richness to data held in an existing relational database. C

A6 Standardised information exchange for road infrastructure projects should

be suitable for all contract forms (e.g. design-and-build, design-bid-build).

B

A7 Identify for which contract type(s) the use cases apply. M Y Y Y

A8 Demonstrate how to handle sharing and exchange of information in term

maintenance contracts.

SY

A9 The organisation that maintains the European Road OTL should be

independent and supported by industry.

I

A10 Roads authorities should publish their information management

requirements to enable their supply chain to develop the necessary

systems.

B

A11 Demonstrate the changes necessary to existing business processes to

facilitate adoption of the European Road OTL and INTERLINK approach.

M

Y Y Y

A12 Demonstrate the changes necessary to existing software packages to

facilitate adoption of the European Road OTL and INTERLINK approach.

M

Y Y Y

A13 The standardisation body responsible for the European Road OTL should

publish a road map for standardisation in order to inform strategic

planning at national and organisational level.

I

A14 Relevant asset information should be gathered and updated systematically

over the life-cycle of an asset, from its inception through design,

construction, inspection, maintenance, and renewal.

4 B

A15 Demonstrate how to assign unique IDs (URI rather than GUID) to existing

and new assets and how to relate structured and unstructured

information to the asset.

M

y y Y Y

A16 Address the distinction between functional need and technical solution. MX X Y

A17 Identify sample changes necessary to existing CDE and AIM systems for

creating and reading the relationships.

SY

A18 Demonstrate how to handle URIs at handover between systems such that

links persist.

SX

A19 Clearly indicate the nature of information handover in use cases, e.g.

offline exchange, online exchange, conversion, ownership change.

M

Y Y Y

A20 Contractors should be required to handover to the asset owner a set of

quality assured, certified as-built graphical and non-graphical information.

5 B

A21 Provide metadata for the suitability of information and the date on which

that suitability was reached.

SX

A22 Owners of asset information should provide project / asset management

partners with access to all information which is not considered business-

sensitive.

13 I

A23 Asset information management should facilitate sharing of information on

the internet.

18 MY Y Y

A24 Common European standards for information management of road

infrastructure assets should be based in English, with the possibility to

translate to other languages.

19 S

Y

A25 Relevant cost information should be linked to asset information

throughout an asset’s life-cycle.

20 S

A26 Road asset objects should include information about construction

tolerance and as-built deviation.

22 C

Nordic Test

Cycles

Planned but

not met.

Planned and

partially met.

Planned and

met.

Provide a basic European Road OTL which complies with the Deliverable D4 requirements and which benefits from parallel

national and international initiatives.

Demonstrate that NRA and industry business and ICT needs can be met with the European Road OTL and other ontologies

using the INTERLINK approach and existing business processes and commercially-available software.

Help the PEB to understand how the European Road OTL can be implemented. (WPF objective but very relevant to WPD.)

Demonstrate the value and feasibility of the INTERLINK LD/SW approach over other existing approaches.

Source Requirement

WPA/B

survey

ranking

Dutch Test

Cycles

German Test

Cycles

03/09/2018 1 of 4


Inherent

Broken down

Must have

Should have

Could have

Won't have

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Nordic Test

Cycles

Source Requirement

WPA/B

survey

ranking

Dutch Test

Cycles

German Test

Cycles

A27 Relevant risk management information should be linked to asset

information throughout an asset’s life cycle.

23 C

A28 Asset management systems should provide information for both the

operation of the road network and the maintenance of the road assets.

B

A29 Demonstrate sharing of selected asset data between operations and

maintenance systems.

SY

A30 Demonstrate how network granularity can be handled with the

INTERLINK approach.

SX

A31 The European Road OTL should facilitate linking with other domain-specific

IT standards which are not specifically related to road infrastructure (e.g.

census data, surveying, railway networks).

C

Y

A32 At the outset of a project, asset owners / managers should define their

information requirements for each asset type, using established standards

where possible.

2 I

A33 An asset object should record the asset’s performance, expected time to

replacement, physical condition and maintenance history.

8 B

A34 Identify how data shared or exchanged in the use cases is relevant to an

asset manager.

My Y Y

A35 When exchanging asset data, the level of development and contractual

status of the data should be clearly stated and defined.

9 SY

A36 For the asset management of roads, the capability should be available to

discretise the road or traffic lanes into manageable segments.

S

Y

Data Needs Statements

B1 Road asset information systems should be based on open information

management standards.

1 I

B2 Asset information standards should be flexible so they can be used at the

national, organisation and project level.

15 B

B3 Demonstrate how the European Road OTL would be linked with

international, national, NRA and/or firm ontologies / classification

systems to provide value.

M

Y Y Y

B4 National information management standards for road assets should be

based on relevant international standards.

I

B5 Standards for information management of road infrastructure should be

built on existing, adopted, generic standards, i.e. information management

standards that are not specific to construction and infrastructure.

I

B6 Asset information systems should enable access to information through GIS

(geographical information systems).

3 SY

B7 Asset information should be based on the same integrated information

standards for all life-cycle stages, from strategic planning through to

operation and maintenance.

7 I

B8 Design checking, design approval and as-built approval should be

conducted using object data with associated model data (e.g. 3D models).

10 B

B9 Demonstrate a process for tagging information with approval metadata. SX X

B10 The owner of shared asset data should be clearly identified (e.g. within

metadata).

SP

B11 Owners of asset information should be able to provide write access

selectively to project / asset management partners.

16 SX

B12 The history of asset data should be clearly identifed (e.g. revision history). SP P P

B13 Asset management systems should facilitate querying and search at varying

levels of granularity such that portfolio risk, asset condition, commonalities

and differences can be analysed.

B

B14 Show how various levels of development can be specified, modelled and

queried with the INTERLINK approach.

SX Y

B15 Non graphical information (eg. specification material test results) should be

linked to defined objects.

6 SY Y Y

B16 The European Road OTL should accommodate linking to IFC-Road, IFC-

Alignment and IFC-Bridge once those standards are published and adopted.

B

B17 Demonstrate linking with InfraGML S Y

B18 Demonstrate linking with IFC Alignment S Y

B19 Linking with other IT standards should be at the data model level as well as

the data instance level.

SY

B20 During a project, the compliance of exchanged data with the client’s

required data structures and data exchange standards should be checked

using automated systems.

11 B

B21 Include automated verification of data against European Road OTL. SY

B22 Include automated verification of data against national- or NRA-level OTL. C

03/09/2018 2 of 4


Inherent

Broken down

Must have

Should have

Could have

Won't have

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Nordic Test

Cycles

Source Requirement

WPA/B

survey

ranking

Dutch Test

Cycles

German Test

Cycles

B23 Standards for exchange and sharing of asset information should be built on

established open web standards.

14 I

B24 Although the value of some as-built unstructured construction quality

documentation (e.g. material test results, method statements) may not be

apparent to asset managers at the time of handover, such data may

present value in the future and should be linked through standardised

objects.

21 I

B25 Where physical assets are represented by more than one object, the

objects should be linked.

SY

B26 In project and asset information systems, all terms and attributes should

have an associated definition to facilitate common understanding.

I

Y Y P

B27 Geotechnical investigation results (e.g. borehole records) should be shared

in a standardised open data format.

C

Asset Life-Cycle

C1 Identify for which asset life-cycle stage the use cases apply. M Y Y Y

C2 Identify Need C

C3 Statutory Process C

C4 Construct (incl. detailed design) S Y Y

C5 Commission C

C6 Operate & Maintain S Y Y

Stakeholders

D1 Clearly identify the stakeholder(s) involved in the use cases. M Y Y Y

D2 National road authorities M Y Y Y

D3 Utility companies C

D4 Software companies C

D5 Contractors S Y Y

D6 Funders and concessionaires C

D7 Information managers S Y Y

D8 Project managers C

D9 Operators C

D10 Academics C

D11 Economists C

D12 Quality managers C

D13 Surveyors C

D14 Regional and local authorities C

D15 Governments C

D16 Universities C

D17 Suppliers C

D18 End users C

D19 Standardisation bodies C

D20 Engineering consultants S Y Y

D21 Asset managers M Y Y Y

D22 Scientists C

D23 Technicians C

D24 Risk managers C

D25 Health and safety managers C

D26 Contracts and legal professionals C

Asset Types

E1 Clearly identify the asset type(s) involved in the use cases. M Y Y Y

Structures

E2 Bridges S Y

E3 Tunnels C

E4 Geotechnical C

E5 Underpasses C

E6 Culverts C

E7 Gantries C

E8 Retaining walls C

E9 Special structures C

E10 CCTV masts C

E11 Advanced directional sign structures C

Road works

E12 Pavement S Y

E13 Alignment S Y

E14 Drainage C

E15 Utilities C

E16 Accomodation works C

E17 Earthworks C

E18 Kerbs, footways C

E19 Boundary treatment C

E20 Lighting S Y

E21 Markings (lines and studs) C

E22 Road restraint systems C

E23 Traffic signs C

Environmental

03/09/2018 3 of 4


Inherent

Broken down

Must have

Should have

Could have

Won't have

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Nordic Test

Cycles

Source Requirement

WPA/B

survey

ranking

Dutch Test

Cycles

German Test

Cycles

E24 Environmental designation C

E25 Approvals and consents C

E26 Biodiversity C

E27 Heritage C

E28 Landscape S

E29 Noise and vibration C

E30 Geology and soils C

E31 Water C

Traffic and ITS

E32 Lane control units C

E33 Traffic control C

E34 Variable message signs C

E35 Communication systems C

E36 Traffic counters C

E37 Control centres S Y

OTL Functionality (see worksheet 'Perspectives on use of an OTL')

F1 Expert orientation MY

F2 Application orientation S Y Y Y

F3 Data orientation S

WPC Requirements

G1 Simple modelling style I

G2 Closed world assumption M Y X X

G3 Naming using user-friendly names, not codes S

G4 Ontology-level linking (Class-level linking) M Y Y Y

G5 Model-level linking C

G6 Instance-level linking M Y Y Y

G7 Query-level linking (e.g. at SPARQL level) C

Information Types

H1 Handle static data (e.g. as-built record, asset location) M Y Y Y

H2 Handle dynamic data (e.g. pavement condition, expenditure) S Y Y Y

H3 Handle real-time data (e.g. weather data, traffic flow data) C

H4 Handle small data sets (easier to work with but may be too easy) M Y Y Y

H5 Handle large data sets (difficult to work with in the test cases but we

should be satisfied that the INTERLINK approach can handle large data sets,

either directly in RDF or indirectly through relational databases)

S

Y

H6 Handle structured and semantic data (RDF + OWL) M Y Y Y

H7 Handle structured and non-semantic data, i.e. 2D, 3D model data (IFC,

GML, etc.)

MY Y Y

H8 Handle unstructured data (PDF, image, etc.) M Y Y Y

H9 Make data publicly accessible (simulate?) S Y Y

H10 Keep sensitive data secure SY Y Y

Benefits of LD/SW over other approaches

J1 Linking and interrogating data across domains S Y Y Y

J2 Reduction in transaction costs S Y Y Y

J3 Reuse of existing well-established web technologies (incl. SaaS) S Y

J4 Avoiding vendor lock-in at the data level and the data relationship level SY Y Y

J5 Avoiding unecessary 3D modelling (there is a move towards tagging IFC

objects with non-graphical data, which first requires 3D)

SY Y Y

J6 Scalability of systems S Y Y Y

J7 Liberating information across integrated systems S Y

J8 Machine-readable data S Y Y Y

WPD1 Requirements?

K1 Linear Reference System OTL backbone S Y Y Y

K2 Common metadata ontologies (provenance, FN/TS, suitability, etc.) M P X X

K3 Common geographic location ontology (e.g. GEOSPARQL) S Y Y Y

K4 Asset data - boundary between EUROTL and other OTLs / classification

systems (national, international, organisational, project-specific)

M

Y Y Y

K5 Maintenance and condition data - boundary between EUROTL and other

OTLs / classification systems

SY Y

03/09/2018 4 of 4

Page 38

Appendix D – View on on Industry Business Processes, Test Use Cases and a Vision for Road Asset Information Management

NRA issues design requirements, including Exchange Information

Requirements (EIR)

NRA & other public authorities issue existing asset information

Designer designs new asset

Designer issues design for NRA approval

NRA verifies information and approves design

Works contractor builds new asset and collates asset

information

The industry business processes are high level, typical and non-exhaustive. They do not directly reflect the process in any one country. Blank cells indicate that the process was not part of the test case. CDE = common data environment. LD platform = Semmtech Linked Data platform used for testing.

Works contractor submits as-built asset information to NRA

NRA verifies and accepts as-built asset information

NRA adds asset information to NRA database(s)

NRA provides database read/write access to

maintenance contractor

Maintenance contractor inspects asset, records condition and

updates NRA database

NRA publishes Asset Information Requirements

NordicUse Cases

GermanUse Cases

DutchUse Cases

Common International Vision

Common EUROTL Vision

CoClass, SOSI, XSD-schema for GML, test

ontologies derived from lighting UML

Test ontologies derived from ASB-Ing

and ASB

NEN2767-4, COINS, RWS-OTL

bSI, OGC, CEN TC/442 (IFC, IDM, ICDD, etc.), PLCS, ISO/TC 211 GIS, EUROTL, INTERLINK

MLG

The library may provide some

linking rule sets

Test ontologies linked to IFC and OKSTRA based on project-

specific EIR

Typically interrelated standards and project-specific requirements

No practicable short-term benefit

for design standards; EIR

based on EUROTL

Mapping, topographical survey

utilities, etc.

Existing bridge drawings, 3D model

(CAD) and point cloud, topographical

survey

Handover asset management

information from contractor to NRA

Container-based exchange, typically

uploaded to LD-based CDE

Distinguish between an asset,

its data, and its related assets;

identify data prov.

Corridor design (Novapoint)

Bridge design with BIM (Revit),

alignment design (Civil 3D)

Multiple applications and file types; BIM and

GIS software assign GUIDs

Asset ID required at appropriate

granularity (functional unit)

DWG, IFC STEP, LD platform used as

common referencing and linking

environment

IFC, ifcOWL, LD platform used as

common referencing and linking

environment

Container-based submission

Container, model files and RDF data

tagged

Lighting data validated against

level of development ontologies

Automated object type-based linking

rules and classification

according to NRA EIR

Schema-based validation against EIR

(contractor-side and/or NRA-side process)

Files tagged

Lighting data (e.g. product data sheet)

linked to asset identifier

Data verified and tagged in LD-based CDE

continuously

Files tagged and linked to asset and/or location

Lighting data and as-built surface model

Maintenance and inspection data, LD

platform used as common referencing

and linking environment

Container-based submission of certified

records


tagged

LD platform, Novapoint used to

show lighting relative to road network and

Open Street Map

Automated object type-based linking rules according to

NRA EIR

Simulated using ontology-based rules

on LD platform

Schema-based verification of all data,

spot checks for consistency with reality


tagged

Simulated by data import data to LD

platform

Triple store and relational databases,

automated integration, multiple data formats for any one asset type

Links between data remain functional at

handover


show bridge relative to road network and

Open Street Map


show lighting relative to road network and

Open Street Map

Some NRAs will use exchange through CDE

rather than direct access

Data security addressed at class

and/or instance level

LD platform, condition data and inspection records

added and visualised using IFC viewer

LD platform, simulation on ESRI platform (lighting column inspection

records, e.g. photo)

Sometimes dynamic, sometimes container-

basedRecords tagged

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Industry Business Processes

View on Industry Business Processes, Test Use Cases and a Vision for Road Asset Information Management

INTERLINK WPD3 Report - Road OTL

Documents