great to see the IDM-Configurator project moving forward. It could be a great extension to the Use-Case Management Tool that is being developed by buildingSMART Switzerland (Bauen Digital Schweiz). www.bdch.ch
We are now doing some background research to gather a list of all existing IDM’s worldwide.
see Mirbeks thread:
Jan Karshoej managed the IDM projects as well as the bSI IDM website. I don’t know the current status. This is another reason that we need a new global IDM server where people can upload and download IDM projects as well as a project upload (registration) and download (sharing) protocol and a quality assurance policy and/or mechanism.
One idea that I’ve floated is that we use the buildingSMART GitHub as the source for the IDM data and then publish the list on either the buildingsmart.org or associated website. From an official bSI “digital platform” perspective, we are trying to focus our own use of online technologies to WordPress for the display/dissemination of information and GitHub as the development platform for tools and standards. That isn’t to say that there couldn’t be other platforms, but at this time we are trying to ween off the old Plone/Linode domains.
I like the “bSI digital platform” idea, but I think that the website should allow more user-interactions than the previous one. The previous IDM website had a couple of problems: 1) The contents were not searchable. 2) Users could not upload or maintain new or updated IDMs/MVDs. So I think the best way to manage IDMs/MVDs is to develop an international standard for exchanging IDMs/MVDs first, and then an IDM/MVD server (or a federated IDM server) for sharing IDMs and associated MVDs based on the international standard. I haven’t thought about using the buildingSMART GitHub as a platform for sharing IDMs and I will need to look into the technical details about the bSI GitHub. At any rate, I think we will still need to have a standard data format for sharing IDMs even if we use bSI GitHub as a platform so that everyone can upload IDMs in the same searchable format. What do you think?
Jeffrey, do you know how to move the topic thread to another category? If you do, could you please move this topic thread to the “Users > IDMs”?
Hi all, here’s an update on the IDM congifurator and xPPM.
First, I realized that I had said that xPPM 2.0 was under development in some of my responses to the emails that had requested for xPPM 2.0. I need to stand correct. xPPM 2.0 was developed and released several years ago. xPPM 2.0 had some bugs and usability issues. So we are developing xPPM Neo with a professional software development group named Cospec Innolab in Korea. The (pre-)alpha version of xPPM Neo is scheduled to be released in September, 2019.
Second, Mark Baldwin and I are submitting a revised (refined) proposal for the IDM Configurator project using the new bSI project proposal template. We have a session on this during the bSI Summit in Dusseldorf. I hope to see you all there.
I would like to see that proposal as well, so I can fit it onto the larger bS tooling strategy discussions as I outlined in Tokyo. My concern is that we have multiple developments of multiple tools with overlapping features and workflows going on simultaneously, with no clear understanding of how and where they fit, or which approaches are the best fit.
Ideally, I think we want to create a bSI “tool box” of different applications/services that address the differnt needs of different stakeholders in different roles and levels (e.g. an institutional owner vs. designer vs. BIM manager vs. software developer vs. researcher vs. IFC schema development, MVD development, IFC implementation, etc…). We need to be careful that we don’t end up with tools that are “jacks-of-all-trades” and too difficult or complex to use for anyone below Super Saiyan-level expertise of bSI standards and processes.
We also need to move as quickly as possible in getting the new IDM database up and running. All the current Plone-based websites (iug.buildingsmart.org, buildingsmart-tech.org, etc.) are scheduled to be taken offline by Düsseldorf. The existing IDM database is in desperate need of attention, if it is intended to continue its use a an authoritative reference. I would appreciate proposals to house the IDM database in a more sustainable way, as soon as possible.
I totally agree with you. The points you made are certainly the motivations for me and Mark to initiate the IDM toolkit/configurator project several years ago and again last year. I am looking forward to having lively discussions on the project and others during the timeslot for this project at the Dusseldorf summit.
We are going to hold the kickoff meeting for the IDM Toolkit project on April 24th Wed, 2019 at 11:00 am GMT for two hours. For those who cannot join the meeting due to the time zone issues, we will try to find a way to record and share the meeting.
Here’s the link to the conference call website:
No log-in/registeation required. (You will be asked to type in your name, though.)
Works only on the Chrome browser.
Here are the agenda items:
15 min: General introduction to the goals and the issues (Ghang and Mark)
15-30 min: Introduction of participants and their efforts (We can probably ask people to introduce their efforts/tool for about 15 to 30 minutes at every conference call, in turn, one at a time.)
30-45 min: Agenda Item #1: Coordination and administration (Mark)
efforts, costs, revenue streams (funding)
Coordinating with other buildingSMART initiatives (bSDD / IFCdoc / ifcXML)
opportunity/risk analysis (how usable, relevant, the ability for bSI to host and maintain, etc…)
30 min: Agenda Item #2: Use case/ER meta-data and classification - Comparison of the existing approaches and issues (Ghang)