INVESTIGATING INTEROPERABILITY CAPABILITIES BETWEEN IFC AND CITYGML LOD 4 – RETAINING SEMANTIC INFORMATION

Applications of 3D City Models range from assessing the potential output of solar panels across a city to determining the best location for 5G mobile phone masts. While in the past these models were not readily available, the rapid increase of available data from sources such as Open Data (e.g. OpenStreetMap), National Mapping and Cadastral Agencies and increasingly Building Information Models facilitates the implementation of increasingly detailed 3D Models. However, these sources also generate integration challenges relating to heterogeneity, storage and efficient management and visualization. CityGML and IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) are two standards that serve different application domains (GIS and BIM) and are commonly used to store and share 3D information. The ability to convert data from IFC to CityGML in a consistent manner could generate 3D City Models able to represent an entire city, but that also include detailed geometric and semantic information regarding its elements. However, CityGML and IFC present major differences in their schemas, rendering interoperability a challenging task, particularly when details of a building’s internal structure are considered (Level of Detail 4 in CityGML). The aim of this paper is to investigate interoperability options between the aforementioned standards, by converting IFC models to CityGML LoD 4 Models. The CityGML Models are then semantically enriched and the proposed methodology is assessed in terms of model’s geometric validity and capability to preserve semantics

Initial Registration of 3D Parcels

Registering the rights of a 3D parcel provides certainty of ownership, protection of rights and unambiguous spatial location. While not all cadastral jurisdictions in the world maintain a digital cadastral database, the concepts of such registration hold true regardless of whether it is a paper-based cadastre or a digital one. Similarly, the motivations and purpose for the creation of a 2D cadastre for individual jurisdictions applies for 3D cadastres as well. It provides a security of ownership of 3D parcel, protects the rights of the owners, and provides valuable financial instruments such as mortgage, collateral, valuation and taxation. The current life cycle of the development of a land parcel includes processes beginning from outside the cadastral registration sphere, such as zoning plans and permits, but has a direct impact on how a certain development application is processed. Thus, in considering the changes required to allow a jurisdiction to register 3D, it is important to note the sphere of influence that could have an impact on 3D registration. These include planners, notaries, surveyors, data managers and registrars; however for the purpose of this paper, the research is focused on the core 3D aspects that are institutional, legal and technical. This paper explores approaches and solutions towards the implementation of initial 3D cadastral registration, as derive by current procedures of registration of 3D parcels in various countries worldwide. To this purpose, the paper analyses the categorisations and approaches to 3D spatial units and examines the validation requirements (constraints) on a cadastral database, at various levels of maturity. In this view, 3D data storage and visualization issues are examined in relation to the level of complexity of various jurisdictions, as provided by the results of the country inventory combined with a worldwide survey in 2010 and updated in 2014 (Van Oosterom, et al, 2014). It seems that significant progress has been achieved in providing legal provisions for the registration of 3D cadastres in many countries and several have started to show 3D information on cadastral plans such as isometric views, vertical profiles or text environment to facilitate such data capture and registration. Moreover, as jurisdictions progress towards an implementation of 3D cadastres, much 3D data collected in other areas (BIM, IFC CityGML files, IndoorGML, InfraGML and LandXML) open up the possibility of creating 3D cadastral database combining the existing datasets. The usability, compatibility and portability of these datasets is a low cost solution to one of the costliest phases of the implementation of 3D cadastres, which is the initial 3D data capture

Preoperative CT angiography reduces surgery time in perforator flap reconstruction

The use of perforator flaps in breast reconstructions has increased considerably in the past decade. A disadvantage of the perforator flap is difficult dissection, which results in a longer procedure. During spring 2006, we introduced CT angiography (CTA) as part of the diagnostic work-up in perforator flap reconstructions to visualise each perforator more accuratety. The main objectives were to reduce surgery time and the number of complications. A chart review was conducted 1 year after CTA introduction to investigate if these objectives were met. Materials and methods: Patients with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap who underwent preoperative analysis through CTA were retrospectively evaluated. The population Results: One hundred and thirty-eight DIEP breast reconstructions were done; 70 underwent preoperative CTA analysis, and 68 had preoperative Doppler investigation. Surgery time in the CTA group was significantly lower (P <0.001) than in the control group, 264 min (SD +/- 62) versus 354 min (SD +/- 83), respectively. There was a tendency for fewer complications in the CTA group compared with the control group. All flaps were successful in the CTA group. In the control group, one flap failed and partial necrosis occurred in three flaps. The differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Preoperative CTA in the assessment of vascular anatomy during perforator flap reconstruction was safe and reliable. It helped reduce surgery time, and may prevent the number of postoperative complications. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons