XSDK: Toward Efficient and Interoperable Scientific Library Collection.
Abstract not provided.
Teranishi, Keita↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “interoperability”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The Kokkos Lectures - Module 6: Fortran/Python interoperability MPI and PGAS.
Abstract not provided.
Trott, Christian Robert↗
An Accessible and Interoperable CO2 Transport Routing Geodatabase for Scalable Computing & Decision Support
This presentation demonstrates the database, emphasizing the development process, including the significance of detailed data cataloging and metadata recording for proper interpretation and data attribution, adhering to organizational standards.
Romeo, Lucy↗
Computing Sparse Tensor Decompositions via Chapel and C++/MPI Interoperability without Intermediate I/O
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Geronimo Anderson, Sean Isaac↗
Distributed Compressed Sparse Row Format for Spiking Neural Network Simulation, Serialization, and Interoperability
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Wang, Felix↗
GFM Inverter Interoperability Through Hardware Testing
This presentation highlights the individual unit testing results of the UNIFI 1MW multi-vendor GFM inverter testing.
black start↗
Development of an Energy Services Interface for the EGoT
The Energy Services Interface (ESI) is a set of rules that ensure private, secure, and trustworthy information exchange between Grid Service Providers (GSPs) and utility customers. Large-scale adoption of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) will be necessary for GSPs to dispatch effective grid services, and to stimulate technological innovations in DER and DERMS (DER Management Systems) technologies, as well as novel grid service programs. The ESI promotes these objectives by advancing a set of rules and interoperability requirements that define bi-directional, service-oriented, logical interfaces between GSPs and customers’ DERs, with expectations for privacy, security, and trust. The ESI rules and interoperability requirements establish boundaries between customers and GSPs that delineate the functions and responsibilities that must be implemented by the developers of Energy Grid of Things (EGoT) ecosystem products. These rules impose constraints on the implementation of a DERMS. The ESI interoperability requirements are based on the Interoperability Maturity Model (IMM), developed by the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium. By emphasizing private, secure, and trustworthy information exchange, and by mandating a service-oriented and interoperable architecture, the ESI promotes the development of an EGoT ecosystem that motivates customer participation and technological innovation. Interoperability will encourage innovation by reducing barriers to entry and increasing confidence of stakeholders. Customers will be willing to participate in DER service programs that establish trust and emphasize customer choice. Large-scale customer participation ensures GSPs have ample DER resources to provide grid services that have significant impact on grid reliability and reduce electricity cost for consumers. This in turn signals economic opportunities that encourage innovation, resulting in the development of a robust EGoT ecosystem.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
LunaNet Position, Navigation, and Timing Services and Signal, Enabling the Future of Lunar Exploration
The International Space Exploration Coordination Group established in 2018 the 3rd edition of the Global Exploration Roadmap (ISECG, 2018) that aims to achieve Mars human surface activities and identifies the exploration of the Moon as a critical intermediate step. A supplement covering updates on surface exploration scenarios was released in 2020 (ISECG, 2020). The Artemis Accords (NASA Artemis, 2020), first signed in October 2020, now includes over two dozen nations, in an agreement on the principles for best practices, including interoperability. September 2022 introduced the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Moon to Mars Objectives highlighting recurring tenets of collaboration with international and industry partners and interoperability, along with infrastructure objectives for Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). The successful Artemis 1 mission paved the way to the ambitious plans to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Just a few months after Artemis 1 launch (NASA, 2022), iSpace HAKUTO-R Mission1 (iSpace, 2022) launched, being the first-ever commercial mission, launched by a commercial launch service provider, aiming to land on the lunar surface. The NASA Artemis programme plans initial crewed landings and traverses in 2025, supported by the Lunar Gateway, followed by regular launches to build the lunar systems (NASA Artemis Plan, 2020), (NASA, 2022). NASA’s contracts with Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS, (NASA, n.d.)) to deliver science and technology to the Moon, with launches starting in November 2023. The European Space Agency (ESA) Argonaut (ESA Argonaut, 2022) programme plans to have recurrent missions to bring payloads to the lunar surface, supporting lunar exploration. These are just a few examples of planned missions that will target the Earth’s natural satellite in the next decade, with forecasts of tens of missions per year (NSR, 2022), (Euroconsult, 2020). The large number of missions and the complexity of landing and operating are expected to demand a change of paradigm from the current Earth-based communication and navigation services. In recent years, several agencies have proposed to deploy cislunar communication and navigation services to support lunar missions (NASA LCRNS, 2022), (ESA Moonlight, 2022), (JAXA, 2022)). All these proposals seek to deploy service-providing satellites in lunar orbit to ease the user missions’ operations. The PNT services objective is to support all types of lunar users (e.g.: orbiters, landers, ascent vehicles, and surface crew and rovers). At the same time, NASA and ESA initiated an effort to define a common framework to ensure interoperability among different service providers: the LunaNet framework. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (NASA and ESA, 2023) covers communication, PNT, and auxiliary services, by establishing a common set of requirements to ensure interoperability. This conference contribution will present the LunaNet PNT services, focusing on the Lunar Augmented Navigation Service (LANS) that resembles the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) concept on Earth: constellations of satellites broadcasting a radio navigation signal synchronized to a common reference clock, with augmentations to accommodate users’ needs in an environment away from Earth. This includes a description of the high-level LANS concept and the basic principles defined to ensure interoperability. In addition, it will describe the common S-band PNT Augmented Forward Signal (AFS) and common messages to be adopted for compliance with the LunaNet framework, and the justification of the selected approach.
LunaNet↗
Lunanet Position, Navigation, and Timing Services and Signals, Enabling the Future of Lunar Exploration
The International Space Exploration Coordination Group established in 2018 the 3rd edition of the Global Exploration Roadmap (ISECG, 2018) that aims to achieve Mars human surface activities and identifies the exploration of the Moon as a critical intermediate step. A supplement covering updates on surface exploration scenarios was released in 2020 (ISECG, 2020). The Artemis Accords (NASA Artemis, 2020), first signed in October 2020, now includes over two dozen nations, in an agreement on the principles for best practices, including interoperability. In September 2022 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) introduced the Moon to Mars Objectives highlighting recurring tenets of collaboration with international and industry partners and interoperability, along with infrastructure objectives for Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). The successful Artemis 1 mission paved the way to the ambitious plans to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Just a few months after Artemis 1 launch (NASA, 2022), iSpace HAKUTO-R Mission1 (iSpace, 2022) launched, being the first-ever mission launched by a commercial launch service provider aiming to land on the lunar surface. The NASA Artemis program plans initial crewed landings and surface traverses in 2025, supported by the Lunar Gateway. Regular launches will follow to build the lunar systems for a sustained presence as presented in the Artemis Plan (NASA Artemis Plan, 2020), (NASA, 2022). NASA’s contracts with commercial providers through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program (CLPS, (NASA, n.d.)) will deliver science and technology demonstration missions to the Moon starting in November 2023. The European Space Agency (ESA) Argonaut (ESA Argonaut, 2022) program plans to have recurrent missions to bring payloads to the lunar surface, supporting lunar exploration. These are just a few examples of planned missions that will target Earth’s natural satellite in the next decade, with forecasts of tens of missions per year (NSR, 2022), (Euroconsult, 2020). The large number of missions and the complexity of landing and operating are expected to demand a change of paradigm from the current Earth-based communication and navigation services, that may be combined with onboard sensors. In recent years, several agencies have proposed to deploy cislunar communication and navigation services to support lunar missions (NASA LCRNS, 2022), (ESA Moonlight, 2022), (JAXA, 2022)). All these proposals seek to deploy service-providing satellites in lunar orbit to ease the user missions’ operations. The PNT services objective is to support all types of lunar users (e.g.: orbiters, landers, ascent vehicles, surface crew, rovers, and deployed science payloads). At the same time, NASA and ESA initiated an effort to define a common framework to ensure interoperability among different service providers: the LunaNet framework. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (NASA and ESA, 2023) covers communication, PNT, and auxiliary services, by establishing a common set of requirements to ensure interoperability. This conference contribution will present the LunaNet PNT services, focusing on the Lunar Augmented Navigation Service (LANS) that would be provided by a system that resembles the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) concept on Earth: constellations of satellites broadcasting a radio navigation signal synchronized to a common reference clock, with augmentations to accommodate users’ needs in an environment away from Earth. This paper includes a description of the high-level LANS concept, and the basic principles defined to ensure interoperability. In addition, it will describe the common S-band PNT Augmented Forward Signal (AFS) and common messages to be adopted for compliance with the LunaNet framework, and the justification of the selected approach.
LunaNet↗
Retaining Systems Engineering Model Meaning Through Transformation: Demo 2
Digital engineering strategies typically assume that digital engineering models interoperate seamlessly across the multiple different engineering modeling software applications involved, such as model- based systems engineering (MBSE), mechanical computer-aided design (MCAD), electrical computer-aided design (ECAD), and other engineering modeling applications. The presumption is that the data schema in these modeling software applications are structured in the familiar flat- tabular schema like any other software application. Engineering domain-specific applications (e.g., systems, mechanical, electrical, simulation) are typically designed to solve domain-specific problems, necessarily excluding explicit representations of non-domain information to help the engineer focus on the domain problems (system definition, design, simulation). Such exclusions become problematic in inter-domain information exchange. The obvious assumptions of one domain might not be so obvious to experts in another domain. Ambiguity in domain-specific language can erode the ability to enable different domain modeling applications to interoperate, unless the underlying language is understood and used as the basis for translation from one application to another. The engineering modeling software application industry has struggled for decades to enable these applications to interoperate. Industry standards have been developed, but they have not unified the industry. Why is this? The authors assert that the industry has relied on traditional database integration methods. The basic issue prohibiting successful application integration then is that traditional database-driven integration does not consider the distinct languages of each domain. An engineering models meaning is expressed through the underlying language of that engineering domain. In essence, traditional integration methods do not retain the semantic context (meaning) of the model. The basis of this research stems from the widely held assumption that systems engineering models are (or can be) structured according to the underlying semantic ontology of the model. This assumption can be imagined from two thoughts. 1) Digital systems engineering models are often represented using graph theory (the graph of a complex systems model can contain millions of nodes and edges). When examining the nodes one at a time and following the outbound edges of each node one by one, one can end up with rudimentary statements about the model (i.e., node A relates to node B), as in a semantic graph. 2) Likewise, from the study of natural languages, a sentence can be structured into unambiguous triples of subject-predicate-object within formal and highly expressive semantic ontologies. The rudimentary statements about a systems model discerned with graph theory closely mimic the triples used in the ontologies that try to structure natural languages. In other words, a systems models semantic graph can be (or is) structured into an ontology. Additionally, it is well established in industry that through natural language processing (NLP), which provides the means to create language structures, that computers can interpret ontological graphs. Therefore, the authors hypothesized that if the integrity of the underlying semantic structure of a systems model is retained, the contextual meaning of the model is retained. By structuring system models into the triples of the underlying ontology during the transformation from one MBSE application to another, the authors have provided a proof of the concept that the meaning of a system model can be retained during transformation. The authors assert that this is the missing ingredient in effective systems model-to-model interoperability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the FY19 Model Interoperability team members who provided a solid foundation for the FY20 team to leverage: John McCloud, for the work he did to guide us toward the right use of technology that will appropriately discover and manipulate ontologies. Carlos Tafoya, for the work he did to develop an application programming interface (API)/Adapter that would export ontology-based data from GENESYS. Peter Chandler, for the work he did to architect our overall integration solution, with an eye toward the future that would influence a large-scale federated production-level systems engineering digital model ecosystem.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Using Open Standards and NASA Open Source Simulation Tools to Model Artemis Base Camp Mission Timelines
The United States’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has announced that the Artemis Program will return humans to the Moon, establishing a persistent presence with the Artemis Base Camp (ABC), and extend human exploration to Mars. The NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center is using internationally developed simulation interoperability standards and NASA open source simulation tools to support Artemis concept, analysis, designs, development, training, and ultimately operations. The NExSyS team has been tasked to support early ABC architecture and mission analysis using mission time lines developed by the crew operations mission planning team. The NExSyS team is developing a distributed simulation framework with initial Artemis element implementations to model the ABC mission timelines using the international simulation interoperability standard High Level Architecture (HLA), the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization’s Space Reference Federation Object Model (SpaceFOM), the NASA open source Trick Simulation Environment, and another NASA open source interface package called TrickHLA. The ABC architecture is composed of a number of key surface elements and resources. Some examples of modeled elements (also known as entities) are landers, habitats, rovers, logistics carriers, and astronauts. Some examples of modeled transferable and consumable resources are power, water, oxygen, nitrogen, scientific samples, and food. These entities and resources are modeled in a collection of individual simulations called Federates. A coordinated collection of interoperable federates is called a Federation and when these federates are tied together in a coordinated simulation run, it is referred to as a Federation Execution. The federates communicate through HLA using data exchange formats defined by a collection of machine readable files called Federation Object Models (FOMs). These FOM files are based on extensions to the SpaceFOM. This enables the instantiation and sharing of objects and interactions between federates in the federation. These provide for entity and resource tracking, object transfer, and data collection. Federate interactions are used to trigger events and notify federates of entity or resource transfers. For the initial implementation, the constituent federates are Trick-based simulations that use TrickHLA to provide the required HLA-base interoperability. These Trick-based simulations provide the required modeling for the individual Artemis elements along with the associated element resources. These federates provide a means to explore traverses between surface elements and exploration sites as scheduled in a mission timeline and explore the affects traverse times have on the overall mission timeline. The mission time lines are modeled using a Trick input file event handling capabilities. Each timeline operation is handled as individual simulation events, and triggered based on previous event status, time of operation, and simulated task completions. In addition, the ABC Federation can be used to perform Monte Carlo analysis. The Monte Carlo tool can vary the inputs, timings, and malfunctions to show how various contingencies in the mission can affect the mission timeline.
Keaton Craig Dodd↗
Biomass Harmonization and SAR Analysis with the Multi-mission Algorithm and Analysis Platform (MAAP)
The Multi‐mission Algorithm and Analysis Platform (MAAP) is a collaborative effort between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) to support above ground biomass (AGB) research in an open science framework. MAAP brings together relevant data, algorithms, and computing capabilities in a common cloud environment to address the challenges of sharing and processing data from field, airborne and satellite measurements. MAAP was publicly released in October 2021, providing computing capabilities co-located with the data, a collaborative coding and analysis environment, and a set of interoperable tools and algorithms developed to support the estimation and visualization of data. MAAP has allowed scientists from both North America and Europe to collaborate on the generation and analysis/visualization of data derived from multiple, discipline-adjacent missions in an open, collaborative environment that has reached beyond traditional scientific investigation. MAAP has been used to support multiple scientific activities. To date, existing LiDAR data from multiple platforms has been calibrated with field measurements and combined for more comprehensive and accurate estimates of above ground biomass AGB; these LiDAR platforms include airborne (e.g. LVIS), the International Space Station (NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI), and satellites (e.g. ICESat-2). The current challenge is to effectively and seamlessly combine the aforementioned LiDAR-based data with new data sources such as P-band RADAR from ESA’s upcoming BIOMASS mission, existing ESA Sentinel-1 C-band SAR, and the 30 PB/yr of high cadence global coverage L-band SAR data from the upcoming NASA-ISRO SAR (NISAR) mission. Recent analysis using MAAP merged ICESat-2 and optical data (Harmonized Landsat Sentinel) produced the most comprehensively precise estimate of boreal-wide AGB to date. Another effort using MAAP is the production and open distribution of global comparisons of AGB map estimates, including from ICESat-2 and GEDI, to bolster stakeholder uptake for policy applications. These map estimates will feed into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) database, likely aiding the next Global Carbon Stocktake of the UNFCCC. Furthermore, the biomass retrieval intercomparison exercise BRIX-2 could benefit from the MAAP providing standardized test cases (based on airborne campaign and spaceborne data) allowing the community to develop and apply retrieval algorithms based on these test cases, while forthcoming SAR data training curricula could also use the MAAP as a teaching and learning platform. The MAAP is meeting the challenges inherent in international, open science collaboration and large scale computing with a platform that is entirely open source and cloud native, using open standards for data access, manipulation, protocols, and formats. The MAAP data system consists of a dedicated data store whose data is indexed in an online catalog conforming to established metadata, application programmatic interfaces (APIs), and service interface standards, using an implementation of the open sourced NASA Common Metadata Repository. Federation of user identities allows users from either NASA or ESA to access and consume services from the other using a unified metadata catalog for the data utilized across the ESA and NASA MAAP platforms. Similarly, we are exploring how to increase interoperability to achieve a common approach to packaging, orchestrating and executing algorithms, with interoperable access to data for subsetting, fast browse, and cloud-optimized access, all using interoperable standards such as those from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). Designed for interoperability, ESA and NASA utilize a common architecture for the software platform. It provides a cloud-based algorithm development environment (ADE) that enables scientists to develop algorithms collaboratively with access to the MAAP data catalog as well as other data archives. MAAP provides an Eclipse Che-based ADE supporting both Python and R languages, popular in this biomass community. Algorithms developed and containerized within the ADE can be deployed to run to thousands of computational nodes in the MAAP’s data processing system (DPS), dramatically speeding up processing and giving scientists a rapid, iterative turnaround of results. NASA’s implementation of the DPS is based on the Hybrid Science Data System (HySDS) framework, used by NASA flight projects to produce Earth science standard products.
cloud computing↗
Evolving the SpaceFOM: Lessons Learned and Future Development
For over fifty years, simulation has been a cornerstone technology for space missions. In many cases, one single simulator, developed by one team, is not enough to meet the simulation objectives. Astronaut crew training, docking, vehicle testing and complex mission planning all require several simulations to be connected and to interoperate, in order to achieve the goal of the simulation. To facilitate the development of interoperable simulations, an open standard, the SISO SpaceFOM was developed in collaboration between government, industry and academia. The standard was released in 2020. The initial release of SpaceFOM focuses on the core interoperability topics for space simulation: (i) specifying spatial data using several, well defined reference frames, (ii) managing time (including real-time, hard real-time, and as-fast-as-possible execution), (iii) composition of systems with subsystems such as space vehicles, and (iv) execution control, such as initializing, running, pausing, and terminating simulations. The initial release of SpaceFOM focuses on the core interoperability topics for space simulation: (i) specifying spatial data using several, well defined reference frames, (ii) managing time (including real-time, hard real-time, and as-fast-as-possible execution), (iii) composition of systems with subsystems such as space vehicles, and (iv) execution control, such as initializing, running, pausing, and terminating simulations. A number of requirements for the next version of SpaceFOM have been identified and proposed solutions are already under development. One key area is the object classes used for data exchange, where a richer set of classes have been proposed, based on practical use cases. For time management, the use of variable time resolutions and variable time steps is also proposed. For execution control, save and restore of simulations is considered as well as improved robustness, to handle failing components. A number of clarifications are also under consideration. This paper provides both a forward-looking view of the technical developments underway and a retrospective on the standard's evolution. The authors emphasize that prioritizing core challenges and delivering a practical first version were crucial steps. While not every idea was implemented in the initial release, the timely delivery of a functional standard enabled real-world applications, the growth of a user community, and the collection of valuable insights to shape future versions. The authors look forward to working with the next version of SpaceFOM together with the growing user community.
Simulation Interoperability↗
Wildfire-Power Grid Interactions: Feedback, Impacts, Monitoring, Modeling, and Mitigation Strategies
Wildfires are increasingly interacting with electric power systems through a two-way hazard chain: fires damage grid assets and trigger cascading outages, while grid faults can ignite new fires under hot, dry, and windy conditions. This review synthesizes the state of knowledge across five domains: (i) physical impacts of flames, heat, and smoke on lines, towers, insulators, and substations; (ii) power-infrastructure-initiated ignitions via conductor clash, high-impedance faults, and corona discharge; (iii) widespread blackouts and disproportionate societal impacts; (iv) multi-scale monitoring spanning laboratory tests, in-situ and grid-integrated sensors, and Earth observation; (v) coupled modeling that links fire behavior with grid operations; and (vi) technological and strategic mitigation pathways spanning prevention, response, and recovery. We integrate these domains into a novel 'feedback-aware' socio-technical framework. Through a longitudinal analysis (2005-2025) of global incidents, we identify that while vegetation contact remains the most frequent ignition source, aging infrastructure failure has emerged as a critical driver of catastrophic 'mega-fires'. We further identify persistent gaps, including limited interoperability of high-frequency grid and environmental data, scarce real-time data assimilation, and under-developed equity metrics for outage management. We conclude by outlining a research agenda to (1) deploy interoperable sensing architectures, (2) advance feedback-coupled fire-grid simulations, and (3) evaluate mitigation portfolios through techno-economic and fairness lenses. Recognizing wildfire-grid interactions as coupled socio-technical systems is essential for protecting infrastructure and communities and for ensuring reliable, sustainable electricity in a changing world.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
ISO_Fortran_binding_m v0.1.0
The Fortran programming language standard defines a broad feature set supporting the interoperability of Fortran programs with program written according to the C programming language standard. Among Fortran's C-interoperability features is a a C header file "ISO_Fortran_binding.h" This header file defines the interface to various C data structures and functions that C programs may use to access Fortran data entities. The ISO_Fortran_binding_m software defines a native Fortran module that presents an interface to these same data structures and functions. ISO_Fortran_bind_m thus enables Fortran programs to access and manipulate Fortran entities in ways that precisely mirror what C programs can do using ISO_Fortran_binding.h. ISO_Fortran_binding_m facilitates writing portable standard-conforming Fortran programs that emulate non-interoperable features, e.g., dynamic polymorphism, in a standard-conforming interoperable way similar but broader than what is demonstrated in Berkeley Lab's Caffeine software [1]. ISO_Fortran_binding_m also enables a Fortran programmer to extend Fortran's capabilities to emulate certain C functionality such as memory address arithmetic or computing C's "sizeof" function. [1] https://github.com/BerkeleyLab/caffeine/blob/213e3df1c319f0663306354414f352acda42a24f/src/caffeine/collective_subroutines/co_reduce_s.f90#L88 [2] https://github.com/BerkeleyLab/ISO_Fortran_binding_m/blob/0c585362bb4f2c72cf9049c800a7115b529ec533/src/iso_fortran_binding_m.F90#L196
Rouson, Damian↗
Recommendations for Data-in-Transit Requirements for Securing DER Communications
With the adoption of Distributed Energy Resource (DER) interoperability standards, common communication protocols are now being deployed between power system operators and DER devices. In 2018, a revision to the US interconnection and interoperability standard, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Std. 1547, required DER equipment to have an IEEE 2030.5, IEEE 1815, or SunSpec Modbus communication exchange interface. This change supports the future transition to secure connection and exchange of information between the DER equipment and implementing parties, such as grid operators. Adoption of standardized communication protocols and associated information models is a critical step toward interoperability between power system operators and DER, such as photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage systems. However, security requirements for these standardized communication protocols are not comprehensive, resulting in non-standard and vendor-specific implementation that may leave DER equipment susceptible to cyberattacks. This paper examines the data-in-flight security requirements for standardized DER communication protocols, per IEEE 1547-2018 revision, as it relates to device authentication, key management, and encryption. The state of the art for these security features is also explored, addressing their impact on communication and performance of low-cost single board computers, which are typical of DER devices. In conclusion, a recommendation is provided to adopt a common set of communication requirements, which are intended to achieve interoperability and implement data security over DER network pathways, while ensuring reliable, secure, and real-time information delivery.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis
With the increasing digitalization of processes throughout the lifecycle of buildings, data exchanged between stakeholders and between building systems has grown significantly. However, a lack of semantic interoperability between data in different systems is still prevalent, hindering the development of applications that can be reused across buildings and limiting the scalability of innovative solutions. Semantics refers to the description of the meaning of the data in a way that can be consistently understood by applications. Recently, several competing initiatives have been developing metadata schemas and ontologies to express this semantic information for different applications in the building domain. This paper systematically reviews these schemas and conducts an analysis of five of them to evaluate their applicability to three high-value use cases for building operations: energy audits, automated fault detection and diagnostics and optimal control. The survey finds 40 schemas published in the last 10 years but but their actual use in industry is difficult to estimate. Among the five selected ontologies, several gaps are highlighted in relation to the three use cases. Recommendations for the future include better harmonization of these initiatives, more centralized repositories and search engines for these schemas as well as better industry engagement to facilitate their adoption.
Smart Building, Sematic, Metadata, Ontology, Data ↗