AP225 Building Elements using Explicit Shape Representation
AP230 Building Structural Frame: Steelwork
AP212 Electrotechnical Design & Installation
| Aish, Robert | Bentley Systems, USA | robert.aish@bentley.com |
| Anderson, Bill | PDESinc, UK | anderson@scra.org |
| Anderson, Robert | BSI, UK | rob_anderson@bsi.org.uk |
| Ang, Jenny | Gintia, Singapore | jenny@Gintia.gov.sg |
| Besekau, Thilo | ProSTEP, Germany | besekau@prostep.de |
| Borras, Miguel | AIDIMA, Spain | miguel.borras@aidima.es |
| Christensen, Noel | Allied Signal, USA | nchristensen@kcp.com |
| Eastman, Chuck | Georgia Tech, USA | chuck.eastman@arch.gatech.edu |
| Endres, Michael | ProSTEP, Germany | endres@prostep.de |
| Fisher, Bob | Intergraph, UK | rjfisher@ingr.com |
| Fowler, Julian | PDT Solutions, USA | jfowler@pdtsolutions.co.uk |
| Garas, Fikry | Taylor Woodrow, UK | f_garas@tel-consult.co.uk |
| Gonçalves, Ricardo | Uninova, Portugal | rg@uninova.pt |
| Goult, Ray | LMR Systems, UK | r.goult@clara.net |
| Haas, Wolfgang | Haas + Partner, Germany | w.haas@haspar.de |
| Holm, Torbjorn | EUROSTEP, Sweden | torbjorn.holm@eurostep.se |
| Hori, Seiichiro | DAITEC, Japan | s-hori@daitec.co.jp |
| Hyvaerinen, Juha | VTT Building Technology, Finland | juha.hyvarinen@vtt.fi |
| Junge, Richard | CAB, Germany | richard.junge@lrz.tu-muenchen.de |
| Kiviniemi, Arto | VTT Building Technology, Finland | arto.kiviniemi@vtt.fi |
| Kobayashi, Kazuya | Toyama University, Japan | kobayasi@pu-toyama.ac.jp |
| Kraushaw, Philip | Boeing, USA | philip.g.kraushaw@pdtsolutions.co.uk |
| Kramer, Tom | NIST, USA | kramer@cme.nist.gov |
| Lewis, Sheila | PDT Solutions, UK | slewis@pdtsolutions.co.uk |
| Lord, Stuart | ICI, UK | stuart_lord@ici.com |
| Mays, Jim | NAVSEA, USA | mays_jim@hq.navsea.navy.mil |
| Moreno, Anna | Enea, Italy | morenoa@casaccia.enea.it |
| Nerke, Reinhard | Siemens, Germany | reinhard.nerke@erl9.siemens.de |
| Ohtaka, Akihiko | Unisys, Japan | akihiko.ohtaka@unisys.co.jp |
| Paul, Greg | Lockheed, USA | L108632@Imtas.Imco.com |
| Pehrsson, Raimo | PI Consulting, Finland | raimo.pehrsson@pigroup.fi |
| Polikaitis, Linas | ITI, USA | ltp@iti-oh.com |
| Pratt, Mike | NIST, USA | pratt@cme.nist.gov |
| Scherer, Raimar | Technische Universität Dresden, Germany | scherer@bbbsr1.bau.tu-dresden.de |
| Schulga, Nikolay | Bentley Systems, USA | nikolay.shulga@bentley.com |
| Shimizu, Hiromichi | Kajima, Japan | shimizu@ae.kajima.co.jp |
| Spiby, Phil | EuroSTEP, UK | phil.spiby@eurostep.co.uk |
| Storer, Graham | Taylor Woodrow, UK | g_storer@tel-consult.co.uk |
| Tarandi, Väino | Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden | tarandi@ce.kth.se |
| Terai, Tatsuo | Chiba Inst of Tech, Japan | terai@cc.it-chiba.ac.jp |
| van Koetsveld, Ilse | CIM Architects, Netherlands | van.koetsveld@tip.nl |
| Ward, Michael | University of Leeds, UK | m.a.ward@leeds.ac.uk |
| Willems, Peter | TNO, Netherlands | p.willems@bouw.tno.nl |
| Wilson, Miyako | Ga Tech, USA | gt4954c@prism.gatech.edu |
| Woestenenk, Kees | STABU, Netherlands | kwoestenenk@compuserve.com |
| Yamashita, Jun-ichi | Fujita, Japan | yamashita@fujita.co.jp |
Work on the VERA project (concerned with information networking in the construction process) continued alongside other national projects. There were now 45 Finnish organizations affiliated to the IAI (out of 110 Nordic Chapter members).
EDIBAU and GAEB were active in the are of data exchange, but, because of a shortage of funding, EDIBAU, which contributes to EDIFACT standardization, had not been so active of late. The activities of GAEB were centered on data exchange during the tendering phase.
Another data exchange initiative involved the association of the German system vendors for the building/construction industry (AGSV). They were currently developing a specification for data exchange between CAD systems and systems for alphanumeric documents such as building specifications and bills of quantities. A first draft in German language would be available in April 1998.
The CDS initiative (using 10303-214, -202, and -225) continued. A timber intiative - using the "Produktschnittselle Holzbau" (product model for timber construction) was underway and there was now a strong IAI chapter in Germany. Karlsruhe University were working on the modelling of the building life-cycle and work continued a product model for roads in Germany.
There had been no major developments in Japan since the Florence meeting - apart from the economic problems caused by the financial crisis affecting South-East Asia. Industry in Japan was proving to be resistant to change but the Ministry of Construction were attempting to promote electronic commerce - including the use of digital cameras and of electronic verification. New financial resources had been bmade available by the government. As has been anticipated at the Florence meeting, funding for the Construction CAD data consortium had now ended, but the work of this body would be continued - on a smaller scale - with the backing of industrial money. The IAI were still active in Japan, and two new STEP initiatives had begun. Many teams were still engaged in the study of IAI and STEP activities. One six-month project was concerned with tendering systems, and three working groups were experimenting with use of the internet and edifact in tendering.
A GIS interoperability project (directed at the creation of a GIS umbrella standard) was underway; as was an initiative to promote the use of STEP in the civil engineering industry. Development of the BAS "construction information framework" continued and had growing support.
The funStep project (to develop a STEP-based data model for the integration of manufacturing and retailing in the furniture industry) was a two and a half year long European ESPRIT initiative. In addition to the development of a standard for the exchange of furniture product data, the inttetion had been to had been to promote the development and usage of STEP related tools within industry in general. The project had been a big success and those involved in the industrial consortium were considering how the work already carried out could be built upon. An international funStep Interest Group was being set-up in order to transfer and share project results with third parties in a co-ordinated manner. A New Work Item for the furniture domain was in preparation and would shortly be submited to ISO.
Portugal was also contributing to ESCN - European STEP Centers Network - which was an European ESPRIT project with the main objective of establishing and executing a STEP/PDT training and technology transfer programme. This initiative would provide an essential foundation for the use of STEP by European industry.
Finaaly, Portugal was also going to be involved in SUMMIT - a European project begining in early 1998 - that would create, implement, test and evaluate an EDI-based communication infrastructure between the various partners involved in constructional manufacturing processes . SUMMIT was dedicated to the exploitation of both the STEP and the EDIFACT approaches to product and process data communication. The aim was to combine the (complementary) advantages of both approaches (business versus engineering data).
The CORENET project continued, and the Singapore IAI chapter was still active.
An 5 year initiative, which was just beginning, was "IT construct 2002" - which will be a research and development project concerned with IT for construction and facilities management. It will focus on three areas - research, standardization and implementation in Construction. There was a widespread and strongly held view in Sweden that the IAI and STEP should merge their efforts. Work on CONDOR, CONCUR and on the roads product model continued.
The newly established Department of the Environment and Transport (the DETR) were supporting many projects. The "Best Practice Initiative" presented an opportunity to bring together different organizations under a single umbrella. Work continued on European projects such as CONCUR, VEGA ELSEWISE, and GENIAL. A demonstrator project to integrate the use of EDI, STEP, and IFCs was planned, as was an initiative - with STABU - to define requirement specifications for construction. There were six initiatives underway that were concerned with cost planning, including: AIT, PRIMA, ELSEWISE, and URGNET.
FDIS balloting would begin on 1998/04/01; and would end on 1998/06/01. This implied that ATS Part 325 would have achieved CD status by the end of March. Implementors were - in Germany - Nemetschek (Allplan), RIBCON (RIB), Hochtief Software (UniCAD), Gravisoft (Archicad), Softimage, Autodesk; - in Belgium - Graphicomp (ICAADS), Star Informatics (STAR); - in the USA - Bentley (Microstation); and - in Japan - Fujitsu (SuperDressy), Daitec (CADWELL), and NEC. There was also one further implementer from the process industry.
The Abstract Test Suites for AP225 (10303 - 325) had been in development for about 2.5 years. There were now 45 test cases and the ATSs would be completed by 1998. Test cases imposed greater rigour on an AP when developed outside an AP project team. If everything went as scheduled, Part 325 would be available as CD by the end of March 1998.
Implementation of AP227 and AP225 in the US by Bentley Systems (Microstation) had been very successful. Moreover, prior implementation of 227 - and (thus) the STEP resources referenced by AP227 - had greatly accelerated the implementation of 225. It was noted that implementability was a major concern for vendors.
There had also been further implementation work on AP225 in Japan since the Florence meeting by a company, acting in process plant environment.
AP225 implementation in Japan presentation
CIMsteel funding was coming to an end at the end of February 1998 and the funding of AP230 and related activities was to be taken on by a consortium of steel companies and organizations led by British Steel. MW cited a number of new CIMsteel Registered Developers who had signed up since Florence - adding to the esiting list of collaborators - and gave an update on the implementation situation. A great deal of time had been devoted to attending meetings and attempting to raise continuing funding for AP230. New requirements from some key vendors had forced a change of course (and had, therefore, imposed a number of delays) on the developers of the CIS/2.0 model. This would now be a hybrid model (ARM-like but incorporating a number of STEP resources) and would serve directly as the ARM for AP230. The CIS/2.0 nmodel was now complete and sould be formally launched on 2 March 1998. MW concluded with a discussion of various issues relating to data mangement, illustrations of a number of different approaches which had been considered during the development of CIS/2.0, and a presentation of the soultion finally adopted.
RN reported on the use of AP212 in the context of an initiative by the German based SIEMENS company. He noted that AP212 was appropriate for the reprresentation of data relating to all types of electrical system - regardless of their size. The main focus of AP212 had been on big systems but this AP was also perfectly suitable for buildings.
http://www.iec.ch/tc3/home-e.htm
JF gave a presentation explaining the Interpretation and Integration processes in STEP and detailing the benefits - in terms of common representation and interoperability of standards (especially in the area of geometry) - that the STEP approach to the harmonization of data models provided.
Interpretation and integration presentation
JF gave a presentation explaining the development of Abstract Test Suites within STEP and detailing the role which ATSs played in the testing of applications purporting to conform to a particular AP.
RG reported that the proposed changes to part 42 were (in general) extensions to what already exisited and that upward compatibility would, therefore, be (largely) preserved. The main exceptions were cases where mistakes in where_rules had been corrected. A discussion of swept areas, truncated pyramids, and other (putative) geometric primitives followed. There was a call (from a number of quarters) for inclusion of the clothoid (curve).
PS reported that EXPRESS-2 would become an IS by 2000 and that a new document would be published at the end of February 1998. He went on to present some of the features of EXPRESS-2 - including the facilities for passing expressions and evaluations of expressions. More information could be had from:
http://www.eurpc2.demon.co.uk\part11.htm
MP reported that the ISO Parametrics Group had liaison status with SC4 and were developing new integrated resources (which would be upwardly compatible with STEP) to alllow the capture of design intent in data models. Such intent was described in terms of geometric relationships, constraints, limits of freedom for dimensions, etc.
Documents on parametrics could be found at:
http://www.mel.nist.gov/div826/subject/sc4/paramet/long/n082/
GP explained something of the history of STEP generic resources and went on to say that these resources had proved to be generally fit for purpose. Changes and extensions were being considered - within the constraints imposed by consideration of upward compatibility issues.
Modular APs represented an extension of the AIC principle, but whereas AICs were (basically) bits of AIMs, the proposed modules were mini-APs with fully developed reference models. This development would be a further contribution to the interoperability of APs.
There was an initiative involving a number of companies (including ABB, VW, Daimler Benz, BMW, KUKA, Porsche and others) who were interested in starting to exchange some of their 2D-CAD data using STEP technology. The initiative had been launched on 7 October 97 at an industry awareness meeting hosted by Daimler Benz and was focused on the exchange of 2D data relating to industrial construction. This meeting took place under the umbrella of the German Building Ministry.
It used a subset (the construction drawing subset - CDS) of conformance class 4 of AP214 - which is identical to conformance class 2 of AP202. Implementation (by Bentley, Autodesk, Nemetschek and others) were scheduled to begin in January 1998 and the first implementations should be available in June 1998. This schedule had been discussed at a first "round-table" meeting of implementers on 1998/01/22, and the system vendors had argued that the proposed schedule was too tight. They would prefer to postpone the date for first implementations until autumn 1998.
MB and RG gave a presentation devoted to the success of the funStep project and announced their intention to consider using their results as the basis of a new Application Protocol.
The project had begun in 1996 - arising from the work of more than 10 national and European projects undertaken during the previous seven years - and would continue until 1999. FunStep was now in its industrial implementation phase and - by its end - would have employed 13 person-years. Organizations in 15 countries had expressed interest in participating in the funStep Interest Group initiative: 35 furniture companies, 17 software houses, 6 trade associations, and 24 others - including academic institutions. There were now two actual implementations. Further details from:
VT explained the requirement for a memeorandum of understanding (MoU) to be drawn up between oragnizations with applying for liaison status (such as the IAI) and SC4. VT then went on to relate events in Florence and the decision to choose Graham Storer and himself as editors of the "Guidelines to accompnay the MoU". It was decided to combine the MoU and the guidelines, and the following text - edited by GS - was agreed:
AK went on to provide a progress update on the activities of the IAI and to report on the release and demonsttation of version 1.5 of the IFCs.
HS spoke about the work carried out in Japan, towards version 3.0 of the IFCs, on behalf of the structural domain committee members. He reported that while reinforced concrete and structural foundations were being addressed, there were still strong requirements to address structural steel and structural in situ concrete - a popular type of structure in Japan.
KW gave a presentation which illustrated the various principles embodies in traditional classification systems and in the new object based Bouw AfsprakenStelsel (BAS) approach - "Construction Information Framework". This framework had originally arisen from a collaboration between three main areas: geometry (CAD), quality (specifications) and cost estimation. The intention was to set up an integrated structure, containing a common set of "Objects of Interest" for each of the areas. It would then be possible to represent common objects geometrically, specify them in a specification system, and to estimate their costs. Although it had begun as a voluntary cooperation, BAS was now a formal organization, supported by industry -with the most important industrial partners represented in the board. The organization will not limit its activities to the three aforementioned areas, but these areas will continue to provide a primary focus of interest.
RP announced that the SteelBase Browser was now fully DEP4 compliant and had also adopted a DSTV model for the representaion of data relating to numerically controlled machinery. SteelBase were now working on the extension of their data model to cover cold rolled steel sheeting - as is used in cladding - and proposed to add Edifact capability in the future.
IK reported that this intiative was backed by SHELL and by CROW and was deveoted to the compbination of AP221 class libraries with the AP202 symbol library. A demonstration of a viewer (which was under development) would be given in Bad Aibling.
Civil class library presentation
Note: Meetings in parentheses are non-BC meetings!
(8:00-10:00 AM Opening Plenary)
(10:30-12:00 AM WG3 Plenary)
1:00-3:00 PM WG3/T22 Building&Construction Plenary
3:30-5:00 PM STEP B&C part 225 status report
(6:00-7:00 PM WG3/AEC Team leaders meeting)
8:00-10:00 AM AP230 status report (M. Ward)
10:30-12:00 AM FunSTEP status report (R. Gonçalves)
1:00-5:00 PM STEP-Building&Construction related projects
(8:00-10:00 AM Liaison Plenary)
10:30-12:00 AM STEP highway projects
1:00-3:00 PM AEC projects, relevant to Building & Construction
3:30-5:00 PM STEP implemenation methods and environments
8:00-12:00 AM Joint meeting with IAI, discussion of technical issues (Agenda to be determined)
1:00-3:00 PM Joint meeting with IAI, discussion of technical issues (Agenda to be determined)
(1:00-2:00 PM Joint AEC meeting, in parallel)
3:30-5:00 PM WG3/T22 Building & Construction closing plenary
10:30-12:00 AM Meeting of DIN NAM 96.4.3
1:00-5:00 PM Industry day, organized by IAI and WG3/T12 Building & Construction (Agenda to be determined)
Minutes Mike Ward
This page is maintained by M A Ward
Last updated 1998-03-05
To the STEP Home Page at Leeds