Create community conventions for attribute names (for BIM)
-
I'm very excited by the new Dynamic Components. One of the features that bring Sketchup a little closer to BIM (Building Information Modelling) is the ability to put attributes on to components. The list of Sketchup's standard attribute names are listed at the bottom.
For those of you who use SketchUp for architecture (like me), I think it would be really helpful for us all to use standard Attribute names, so that reports will make sense when we are using other people's components. Maybe this is a tall order, and I'd like the community opinion on this. Potentially, I am talking about attribute names like UValues, Manufacturer, ComponentType and things like that.
I just feel that the open way in which Sketchup designed this feature means that the rest of us will have to create conventions for ourselves to make it useful. Especially when it comes to sharing our Dynamic Components.
Is this worth it? If so, how best should we publicise these 'standards'? Most importantly, what standard attribute names can you think of which would be useful to you? I will create a list of them if you like.
For those of you who are interested in the standards for BIM in the US, the following links should be helpful:
http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/pdfs/NBIMSv1_ConsolidatedBody_11Mar07_4.pdf
http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/pdfs/NBIMSv1_ConsolidatedAppendixReferences_11Mar07_1.pdf@unknownuser said:
Sketchup default Standard Attribute Names
Component Info
Summary
ItemCode
Position
X
Y
Z
Rotation
RotX
RotY
RotZ
Behaviours
Materials
Hidden
onClick
Copies
FormDesign
ImageURL
DialogWidth
DialogHeight -
This is something I know little about, and it might be a tall order. But I'd say don't let that stop you (us). I'd be interested in trying to conform to standarrds if I could easily find those standards.
Chris
-
I think its a good idea but i think it would be next to impossible to enforce it with any rigour. I tihnk there are just too many people using SU who would never be aware that any sort of standard exists and so wouldnt be able to conform to it.
Having said that, if you could get a few prolific users to use the standard you might be able to build up a reasonable collection of properly attributed components.
-
Also, what about different standards in different countries (not to speak about metric / imperial units)?
-
@gaieus said:
Also, what about different standards in different countries (not to speak about metric / imperial units)?
Indeed, this is a large concern. At the risk of seeming arrogant and ethnocentric, I think we have to stick with an English version if we are ever going to make standards.
I'm a metric user (UK), I know architects in the US often use imperial. I must say that DC gets messy when I have to convert the units from imperial to metric (and vice versa). Let's hope someone designs a ruby script that easily converts DCs to/from imperial / metric.
@remus said:
Having said that, if you could get a few prolific users to use the standard you might be able to build up a reasonable collection of properly attributed components.
I think this is the best approach. I think I may create an architect's 'DC toolkit' in the coming months, and it will be through releases like this that any kind of conventions emerge.
I also hoped that Google might be able to host a page with standards within their help pages. I don't know how I should approach them on this one. I'm also assuming that soon, people will be making video tutorials on making DCs - if we could reach them, we could reach a lot of people.
Anyhow, for the time being, it would be good to have a brainstorm of standards!
-
I think attribute naming conventions would be great, and where better to develop and communicate these that at SketchuCation.
One reason that hasn't been mentioned yet for importance of attribute naming, is that if you use the "swap component" feature to bring in a new component that attribute data will carry over for matching names.
This is different than choosing reload compant and choosing a different file. The "swap comment is new to DC's and how it deals with attributers is how it differs from jut reloading a different file.
Let me give an example. Lets say I metal widow with attributes like "frame width, frame depth, window width, window height, window depth". I have already customized a window to suit specific needs, but now want to change to totally different type of window but with same dimensions. If I swap one window for another with same naming attributes, all of the attributes will carry over and I'll be done. If I don't have matching attribute names, I'll have to resize everything about the window.
Only odd thing here is that for example I wouldn't want "manufacture" to carry over, since the new DC would have a different manufacture that I want to keep. Maybe in SU7.x they can have option for specific attributes to make them "not swappable".
The other thing I'd love to see is ability to create DC's in SketchUp that have matching Revit Families. Then using the standard BIM format (Can't remember name maybe "IFC") could port things over to Revit and save a lot of rework. Using this method the actual SU geometry isn't imported, but rather one DC is swapped for a family using an "IFC Exporter". Revit already has an import option for this, so if SU could export it then this woudl seem possible. This to some extent solves the problem of curves in SU being segments. Since I'm not bringing them into my Revit Construction Documents it doesn't matter.
I don't think walls and floors are well suited for this. I would draw those in Revit. But everything we set in the building from sinks to casework, lights, furniture, windows, and doors would seem fair game for this. Again attribute naming and structure wold be critical for this.
-
One way to handle this might be to create a "template" DC that is shared on the 3dwarehouse and contains all of the "standard" attributes for a given industry. If you going to create, say, a window, then you grab that template and build your window inside of it.
The really hard part is getting a standard that covers everyone's needs while also being relatively simple. Ideally, it would be best to find an existing data standard to follow rather than create our own, but we may find that it's more practical to create smaller, simpler subsets of these giant standards.
I like the idea, but I'm not an architect so I don't know what more to say, except that the SketchUp team would be happy to entertain proposals for establishing lists on our website or collections on the 3d warehouse for this kind of thing.
-
SU-DC-BIM!
This idea is very good!
-
Excellent suggestion. I agree with Remus though, it seems like a tall order to get everybody to follow the convention, but you have to start somewhere.
-
I'm just a voyeur into this conversation but I have to say its absolutely great to see the collaboration between users, third party developers and Google developers happening. I've always known why SU was so successful but it's nice to be reminded of it now and again. I hope you can collaborate and come up with a solution but more importantly please keep this dialog and exchange of ideas flowing as this is the heart of what makes SU successful.
Advertisement