9.1.1.  A geo-spatial 3D specification would support data consumers by:

9.1.2.  A geo-spatial 3D specification would support data providers by:

10.1.1.  CityJSON and CityRDF

[27] proposed the extension of the CityGML and its accompanying serialization CityJSON as an ontology model. Currently, the CityRDF standardization group works towards the standardization of this CityGML data model in RDF.

The proposed CityRDF model, even though focused on CityGML and 3D building contents, contains valuable data descriptions which could be generalized in a GeoSPARQL 3D approach. One such element is the description of the appearance of a 3D-modeled building using colors or textures, so-called surface materials. In addition, CityGML includes relations of 3D primitives between each other, which could serve as an inspiration for similary-named functions or properties in the GeoSPARQL 3D ontology model.

[27] describes the CityGML Ontology, which is an ontology model to formalize the CityGML standard towards a representation in OWL. It shows a workflow of identification, classification and selection of the relevant data points needed to describe 3D city models in OWL as derived from building and city models. In addition, it introduces the concept of Level of Information Need, defining the granularity of the information on the various levels of the building and the types of information retrieval — direct/indirect, i.e. information which is commonly obtained directly from a dataset or using a calculation or reasoning approach. The paper exemplifies the concept in a study case for property unit cost and indoor daylight. The contribution outlined here became the basis of the CityGML ontology which can serve as one broad application area for GeoSPARQL 3D.

Following on this publication [22] presents a system architecture and a set of interfaces that can represent city modeling approaches using dynamic geospatial knowledge graphs. The paper proves the viability of a transition between a SQL based system for 3D building management to a SPARQL based system using a SQL2SPARQL Transformer component. It therefore proves the feasibility of employing linked open data technologies for 3D building data and in particular the CityGML model in practice.

[30] introduces CityGML 3.0 with a newly added Core module including a new space concept and Level Of Detail concept. The given publication sets the standard especially for Level of Detail in 3D buildings, which may be considered for adoption as GeoSPARQL 3D concepts too. In addition, CityGML 3.0 proposes the addition of 3D point clouds for the representation of 3D goemetires of physical spaces and space boundaries. A mapping from IFC to CityGML 3.0 is also proposed by these authors.

CityGML 3.0 therefore represents many of the elements that a GeoSPARQL 3D ontology would need to implement on a more abstract level and can give ideas about future query functions to be implemented in the GeoSPARQL query language.

In addition, a master thesis hansson2024citygml proved the feasibility of not only converting CityGML to a knowledge graph representation, but also its application in triple stores such as Ontop or 3DCityDB. The mapping of CityGML to the knowledge graph was tested using a set of SPARQL queries retrieving different components of building parts. While the thesis could construct a knowledge graph representation from CityGML, it points out that the incorporation of sptaial operations is left to future work and could provide a possible field for GeoSPARQL 3D adoption.

Finally, [21] proposed OntoCityGML, an extension go the CityGML ontolog https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666546821000574?via%3Dihub Semantic 3D City Database — An enabler for a dynamic geospatial knowledge graph

Other details and history of Onto CityGML.

CityRDF working group https://github.com/ogcincubator/cityrdf

10.3.1.  STereoLithography (STL)

STL files describe only the surface geometry of a three-dimensional object without any representation of color, texture or other common CAD model attributes. The STL format specifies both ASCII and binary representations and was invented by the Albert Consulting Group for 3D Systems in 1987. Nowadays it is mainly used for 3D printing purposes, which makes is a plausible candidate for support in GeoSPARQL 3D settings of movable objects such as in cultural heritage. Since the STL format does not contain a geospatial reference, the reference needs to be provided externally if STL files were to be used in a geospatial context. However, STL objects could be used in local CRS contexts as well.

10.3.2.  Wavefront OBJ Format (OBJ)

The OBJ format is a file format developed by Wavefront Technologies for the Advanced 3D Visualizer animation package. Its roots therefore lie in the world of 3D animation. The format represents vertex coordinates, texture coordinates, as well as vertex normals, parameter space vertices and faces of a 3D model. These are all elements which would need to be considered and supported in an upcoming GeoSPARQL 3D release.

10.3.3.  Polygon File Format (PLY)

The Polygon File Format is a format which was designed to store 3D data from 3D scanning environments, which makes it especially widespread in the Cultural Heritage application area. The format consists of a vertex list and a faces list with optional parameters per vertex. Like the OBJ format, supporting PLY would imply including support for vertices and faces of a 3D model and their relationships in a knowledge graph.

10.3.4.  CARARE Metadata Schema

The CARARE metadata schema d2013carare is a harvesting schema intended for delivering metadata about an organisation’s online collections, heritage assets and their digital resources. The strength of the schema lies with its ability to support the full range of descriptive information about monuments, building, landscape areas and their representations. The CARARE metadata schema builds on existing standards and best practice from a number of different countries in Europe and the rest of the world.

10.3.5.  IIIF 3D

The International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF) standard snydman2015international is currently developing a specification for the standardization of 3D viewers. The viewer specification includes the visualization of 3D models including lighting positions, a scene graph and annotations in the form of additional 3D objects added to a 3D scene. A GeoSPARQL 3D standard might need to be compatible with, or include a compatibility statement of, converting 3D objects encoded in GeoSPARQL to the IIIF viewer specification. A prototype implementation might be necessary to comply with this specification.

10.3.6.  X3D and X3D Ontology

The X3D format feichtenhofer2020×3d, brutzman2010×3d, X3DOM behr2009x3dom and its Ontology version brutzman2020×3d provide a data format and a blueprint for how 3D data is handled in computer vision approaches. X3D is an interesting format to investigate for 3D components which need to be modeled within a GeoSPARQL 3D specification. It is a likely candidate for a literal format and might be integrated using interlinking approaches to the already existing X3D vocabulary. However, since X3D was invented with computer vision approaches in mind it does not define any geospatial aspects that could be considered by a GeoSPARQL 3D implementation.

10.3.7.  Geometry Metadata Ontology (GOM)

The Geometry Metadata Ontology (GOM) introduces classes for surfaces which are common in the 3D world, but uncommon for 3D geometries, for instance Meshes or NURBS surfaces. The ontology can serve as an inspiration for extensions in GeoSPARQL 3D and may or may not be fully or partly adopted in the process of standardization.

10.3.8.  Ontology for Managing Geometry (OMG)

The Ontology for Managing Geometry (OMG) describes states and derivation of geometries which may be useful to the description of data in GeoSPARQL 3D. For example. an extrusion in 3D from a 2D geometry template would have a derivation relation from the 2D geometry which one might want to see modeled in GeoSPARQL 3D.

10.3.9.  File Ontology for Geometry Formats (FOG)

The File Ontology for Geometry Formats (FOG) provides a bridge between ontology descriptions of geometries and data file descriptions of 3D contents. Since many 3D datasets are of considerable size, their inclusion into the knowledge graph as String literals might hinder the query performance of said knowledge graph. It therefore stands to reason whether to adopt the same or a similar method of geometry access that FOG provides for GeoSPARQL 3D.

10.5.1.  Use Cases

Use Cases in the Cultural Heritage domain include, but are not limited to, the following main interests:

Visualization: The visualization of 3D models for the presentation of such 3D models, for example in the context of a museum. 3D models may be styled with a particular set of textures or modeled with a specific set of colours to highlight certain relevant aspects. The visualization of 3D models is currently standardized by the IIIF 3D working group [29], which aims to create viewing parameter descriptions that 3D viewers may implement, similar to the specifications of IIIF 2D for images.

Object Annotation: 3D models are seen as the subject of a research question in absence of the original artifact for political, practical or other restrictive reasons. Out of all known methods of the representation of cultural heritage artifacts, 3D models provide the most detail when being delivered as a digital artifact and are therefore very often preferred in a research context. Researchers mark noteworthy aspects of the cultural artifact as 3D annotations [28] which may include surface descriptions, volumes of the 3D model or 3D models which are created and placed adjacent to the to-be-annotated 3D model [20].

Relation of Objects: Objects of a specific collections always exist in a spatio-temporal context. It is important to relate these representations via meaningful relations, so that relevant objects of a collection can be retrieved more easily

AI Applications in Cultural Heritage: Usage for annotated areas on 3D models or their derivations for machine learning classifications Stotzner_2023_ICCV 10.2312/gch.20231157

Knowledge Graphs as Metadata descriptions: With the advent of more 3D models being published, the relevance of their creation parameters [31], their contents and their object metadata increases for the usecases of filtering them and also for the possibly automated selection of suitable cultural heritage metadata for e.g. machine learning classifications. Currently, many metadata standards fulfil parts of the description chain and a unified vocabulary to described data types seems to be missing.

10.5.2.  Research applications making use of 3D models in Cultural Heritage

This section discusses research projects with 3D contents based on the technologies they use as elaborated in the previous section.

10.6.1.  Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and BIM

BIM is a paradigm in which object‐model definitions — with machine‑interpretable semantics — are exchanged, rather than relying on CAD drawings that convey only graphical semantics. The predominant open exchange standard is Industry Foundation Classes (IFC). IFC is unique in the sense that it allows expressing both geometrical as well as non-geometrical semantics.

Non-geometrical: taxonomy of objects (building elements, relational constructs, scheduling information) and related properties

Geometrical: appromximately 250 constructs related to geometry; even standards with only a geometric focus such as geosparql or collada do not reach that breadth in definitions

IFC has its idiosyncrasies and challenges, but is unrivaled in terms of market adoption in a highly fragmented industry.

10.7.1.  CGAL → SFCGAL → PostGIS

10.7.2.  OpenCASCADE

10.7.3.  BRep vs mesh/polyhedron

BRep

Mesh/polyhedron

11.1.1.  Requirements addressed

In order to define which capabilities GeoSPARQL needs to adopt for full 3D compatibility, we first take a look at GeoSPARQL 1.1 current capabilities with regards to 3D.

11.1.1.3.  Core Module

GeoSPARQL version 1.1 includes a CORE module. This defines the basic classes, relationships, and literals. These classes are suitable for both 2D and 3D.

11.1.1.3.1.  Topology Vocabulary Extension

This extension provides standard definitions for spatial relationships that can exist between one spatial object and another.

Relations between geometries have been defined using three different sets of rules:

• Simple Features Relations

• Egenhofer Relations

• Region Connection Calculus RCC8

These topological definitions specify topological relations in a 2D-context.

11.1.1.3.2.  Geometry Extension

GeoSPARQL 1.1 geometry module defines a class Geometry as a subclass of SpatialObject.

An instance of Geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

A fine-grained classification of Geometry can use the Simple Feature Vocabulary which extends the class Geometry with further types, such as Point, Polygon etc.

The Simple Features vocabulary allows for the definition of 3D variants of:

• (Multi)Points

• (Multi)LineStrings

• (Multi)Polygons

• Polyhedralsurface

It does not include commons 3D primitives, such as Cube or Mesh surfaces which are integral parts of 3D representations. Nor does it include extruded geometry.

 

Figure 1 — Possible approaches for representing 3D objects in IFC

Concerning metadata of 3D models, GeoSPARQL 1.1 provides properties which can be reused in 3D contexts. In particular, the properties are:

• geo:hasVolume

• geo:hasMetricVolume

Further 3D-related metadata properties such as projection matrices are not part of the current GeoSPARQL 1.1 standard.

A first requirement for 3D support is the ability to save 3D data in a knowledge graph.

The Geometry extension enables geometries to be defined within the GeoSPARQL framework. Supported geometry formats include RDF literals in WKT, GML, GeoJSON, and KML.

These literals are investigated for the storage of 3D data.

 

Figure 2 — Difference between 2D, 2.5D and 3D geometry

Table 2

Literal Type	Z-Coordinate Supported	2.5D	3D
WKT Literal	Yes	Yes	Yes
GML Literal	Yes	Yes	Only with extension Schema
KML Literal	Yes	Yes	As import from COLLADA
GeoJSON Literal	Yes	Yes	Yes
DGGS Literal

GeoSPARQL 1.1 also does not restrict the usage of coordinate reference systems with 3D support. There are currently almost 300 coordinate reference systems in the database epsg.io which can be used to describe 3D data encoded in the GeoSPARQL graph literals listed above.

GeoSPARQL allready supports linking multiple geometries (e.g., 2D and 2.5D) to a single feature. We aim to extend this with 3D geometries.

For example, a tree in the real world may be represented in databases with both a 2D and a 3D geometry.

This should not require duplication of the tree entity — there can be one tree instance with both geometries linked, avoiding redundancy in the data model.

11.1.2.  Adoption of GeoSPARQL 1.1

12.1.1.  Proposed extensions for GeoSPARQL 3D

13.1.1.  Meaningful creation and querying of 3D geometry

Whether manually or programmatically defining 3D geometries in BIM, GEO or CG environments, the GeoSPARQL standard could provide or connect to vocabulary to represent 3D structures. A 3D cube, for example, can be represented in multiple ways:

Once GeoSPARQL offers the means to define and link 3D geometries in these different ways, it will allow both humans and machines to interpret and interact with the data effectively.

13.1.2.  Meaningful creation and querying of 3D topological relationships

Is “3D Geometry A” inside, touching, overlapping, intersecting or above “3D Geometry B”?

Being able to describe and use such topological relationships is crucial for conducting spatial analyses, formulating rules, and deriving knowledge from different heterogeneous datasets.

Beyond describing topological relationships, one should be able to query them:

Such queries should return the appropriate topological result (e.g., “intersects”), which is essential for use cases like clash detection in design validation

13.1.3.  Derivation of geometric and topological knowledge

From explicitly modeled geometric and topological data, one should be able to infer implicit knowledge.

For instance, if 3D Geometry A is 3D inside 3D Geometry B, then we can infer that:

even if these facts are not explicitly stated.

For entailment an application that is compliant with the geo-spatial 3D specification would be able to answer queries like: “Does this tree have a 3D geometry?”

If the tree is defined using a MultiSolid geometry, then the answer should be “yes,” even if this is not explicitly declared as such.

13.2.1.  Visualization

There is a growing need to visualize how 3D data in BIM and GIS relate to one another. Stakeholders want to see BIM and/or 3D Geo data of a newly planned structure visualized within the 3D Geo and/or BIM context of the existing digital city. A shared vocabulary that can present both domains in an integrated way supports this goal.

13.2.2.  Calculation and analysis

Semantic modelled 3D-model enables powerful computation and analysis. Analytical results can be displayed in dashboards operating within the GeoBIM domain. This creates a bridge between asset management (typically GIS-oriented) and project management (typically BIM-oriented), allowing for cross-domain collaboration and decision-making.

13.2.3.  Spatial querying

Spatial querying is a key function within a federated GeoBIM Network. Questions such as “What material is located in this area?” or “Where is space available for new cables and pipelines?” are examples of 3D spatial queries that can be answered when GeoSPARQL 3D is functioning effectively across systems and semantics.

13.2.4.  Machine control

A shared semantic GeoBIM Network also supports machine control. The GIS domain typically describes the existing situation, while the BIM domain describes the intended or future situation. This combination can be used to automatically instruct and guide machines in the built environment.

13.2.5.  Modeling, simulation and planning

A network of datasets with 3D-data should support the modeling, simulation and planning of future changes to the built environment. Users — whether human or machine — can use the network and GeoSPARQL 3D to propose and model modifications in either BIM or GIS formats. A well-functioning 3D semantic GeoBIM Network enables this kind of forward-looking spatial planning and design.

13.3.1.  Brings together different domains (GIS, BIM, CG)

GeoSPARQL 3D can help in bringing together different domains that work with 3D information.

13.3.2.  Enables extension to vocabularies from other domains

The vocabulary can have the possiblity to extend to vocabulaires with 3D geometry or topology from other domains, for example the Building Ontology Topology (BOT) or RELOC Ontology. Multi-domain models with georeferenced 3D and 2D city models could be also linked by CityRDF ontology based on CityGML 3.0 standard. GeoSPARQL 3D would be important enabler for data retrieval, update and analysis for such models. In addition to ontologies, it can also establish relationships to 3D file formats from other domains, such as glTF.

13.3.3.  Facilitates better interoperability between knowledge domains with spatial components (geography, aerospace, architecture, product design, (bio)chemistry, IoT, …)

A unified geometric language can help by migrating ideas and methods across fields, accelerating innovation. For example a parametic design algoritm, rule, or llm making use of geometry and topology originated in aerospace, can be re-used in the architecture domain.