---

Comments (3)   Add Comment

---

Re: Discuss 3D Ubiquity and Interoperability    By Patrick Suermann, P.E, NBIMS Testing Team Leader on 2/28/2007 I think the pending publishing of the version 1.0 of the NBIMS will help shift the A/E/C/O paradigm of BIM just equalling 3D construction documents to a more informed approach for managing information exchange in the most rich, robust way. http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/

Re: Discuss 3D Ubiquity and Interoperability    By Francis ALLIAS on 2/28/2007 Hi David, It would be great to have this meeting around Interop. As former TTF CEO and actual Adobe's consultant , I can bring some infos. Francis ALLIAS CEO , The P51 Group

Re: Discuss 3D Ubiquity and Interoperability    By jncallen on 3/2/2007 Modeling in 3D sure does make a lot of sense. After all, most design problems are 3D in their very nature (this does not mean that there are not 2D abstractions that are used in various design disciplines). Unfortunately, it seems as though the mechanical design industry got side-tracked with the wonderfulness of 3D. Some even went so far to claim that a solid model was all that was needed to produce/manufacture a product. As an encoding, 3D B-Reps are a great way to capture an object's geometry, but unless a product is made up from a single piece part, its geometry is not enough to manufacture it. You need to have a full product specification. Up until recently, 2D was the domain where product specificiations were encoded and communicated. ANSI Y14.41 changes this by standardizing the 3D display of GD&T, a correlary to what ANIS Y14.5 did for 2D display of GD&T. Again, we run the risk of being over ennamoured with the slickness of 3D. Certainly being able to display this information in 3D potentially alleviates the need to generate corresponding 2D projections. But does displaying information in 3D make it any more consumable? Whether one talks about 2D or 3D, you're still talking about how information is displayed and this corresponds to a visual (ie. human) interpretation. This does not ensure consumability by downstream or parallel processes. In order to ensure consumability you actually have to deal with how this information is encoded, accessed and interpreted - and that's fundamentally not a 2D or 3D question. Looking up Ubiquity provides an interesting definition - "the state of being everywhere at once (or seeming to be everywhere at once)" Could it be that we're focusing on the wrong thing here? Instead of fixating on 2D or 3D, should we really be focusing on whether or not we providing the necessary data in a consumable format? Quite frankly, whether it's 2D or 3D seems almost irrelevant.

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel