BIM Dictionary - Suggestion to modify term descriptions

Hi @Bilal I am reviewing the Italian translation and I would like to suggest some changes:
Performing monitoring. can we change “Building Performance” to “Asset Performance” to make it more generic?
Thus, changing/adding “Asset Performance
Same for Thermal Analysis
Same comment for Reflectivity Analysis that speaks about "building surface. to be changed to “asset” surface.
Same for “Site Analysis”: change “building” to “asset”
Same for Solar Analysis

Security Analysis: not sure about “virtual security audits”. I spoke with a security expert and I was told it is not a term used. We can simply use “security audits”.

Value Analysis can we change “exercises” to “analyses”?


1 Like

Thanks @Marzia! I’ve assigned this as a review task to myself. I will do that early next week and come back to you. I can’t see any conflicts with making these changes but I’ll double-check.
Others please comment on these recommendations if you wish.

1 Like

Hi Marzia,

Thank you again for your suggestions.

I have completed a review of the terms and descriptions mentioned and below are the actions taken with their justification. Please let me know if you have further comments or suggestions:

Performing Monitoring: the description will change to include [[Asset]]s without removing [[Building Performance]] as follows:

A [[Model Use]] representing how 3D models are used to monitor and manage [[Energy Utilisation]] and other [[Performance Metric]]s for [[Asset]]s of all [[Asset Scale]]s….also refer to [[Building Performance]]

Building Performance: no change to the term - Building in Building Performance is the target Asset Scale for this term.

Thermal Analysis: no change to the description – Building is the target scale of the Thermal Analysis not other Asset Scales. Changing Building to Asset will lower the term’s precision.

Reflectivity Analysis: no change to the description – Building is the target scale of the Thermal Analysis not other Asset Scales. Changing Building to Asset will lower the term’s precision.

Site Analysis: the description will change to the following (as scheduled since March 11, 2020 in the Shared Master File) – Building is replaced with [[Asset]]:

A [[Model Use]] where [[BIM Software Tool]]s and/or [[Geographic Information System]] tools are used to decide on optimal site for an [[Asset]] or a construction project and/or to decide the optimal location of an asset within a specified site

Solar Analysis: no change to the description – Building is the target scale of the Thermal Analysis not other Asset Scales. Changing Building to Asset will lower the term’s precision.

Security Analysis: the description will change – the word ‘virtual’ will be removed. Removing the word increases the term’s applicability in Mixed Reality scenarios without reducing the term’s precision.

Value Analysis: no change to the description – the term ‘Value Management exercise’ is common in VM literature and there are specific VM exercises that can be conducted.

Please note that committing changes to the online tool awaits confirmation from the developer relating to translation version control.

I will post here once the updated terms are uploaded.
All colleagues are invited to suggest improvements to term descriptions especially if they improve both coverage and precision. As is try in all materials, they can always be improved.



Hi @Bilal thanks for this review.

I have further comments for Thermal A., Reflectivity A. Solar A. : in this way we are escluding these analyses for infrastructure (e.g. for bridges).


Thank you Marzia.
Yes, terms in general need to apply to Asset Scales 40-60 which includes buildings, bridges, roads, etc. However, not all terms apply to all scales. For example, for bridges and roads, there would be additional terms like Thermal Load (not included in the dictionary at the moment). Another example, Solar Analysis would not apply to all Asset Scales or Asset Types (e.g. tunnels). So when a term applies to multiple Asset Scales, the term ‘Asset’ should be preferentially used (to increase applicability). If a term applies only to buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc, then that specific asset type will need to be named (to increase precision). It’s always an interplay between applicability and precision and there is no hard-wired rule for all terms, Each term and its description will need to be assessed for these and other considerations. I hope this makes sense.

1 Like

Thanks. I think it would be good to discuss this with Infrastructure Topic curator in the future. I am not expert on tunnelling but there might be the case when Sun analyses are performed especially for Sun glare of tunnel exit.

Yes, the Topic Curator may suggest extending the description of existing terms or - if needed terms are not available - suggest new ones. Thx.

Hi @Bilal I have also a question on “BIM protocol” term. It seems from the definition that in Australia, it is a synonym of the BIM Management Plan = BEP. Is this true in Australia? Because in my experience it is a contractual addendum in USA and UK.
UK= BIM protocol (see CIC BIM Protocol)
USA= BIM addendum (see consensusDOC303)

I have never worked in Australia so I would need a clarification from you on this. I would also suggest to add “BIM Addendum” as synonym for the USA market.

Hi @Marzia, yes correct. The term BIM Protocol is often used here in Australia to mean a contractual addition covering information exchanges resulting from model-based collaboration. Other terms are used interchangeably but the general meaning is not lost on informed users. I have included BIM Addendum as a Similar Term as recommended. Thank you.

1 Like

Hi @Marzia and @Bilal, I only add a note that we (in Czechia) are now in the commenting process to the suggestion that the BIM protocol would be prepared as a template for contractual addition as a relatively stable part of the contract. BEP will be the additional part, where information will be changed (evolved) during the project without the need of approval from the actors management (to minimize it).


Thank you Stapanka for the note. So you’ll have both a BIM Protocol and BIM Execution Plan governing the delivery: the protocol referring to pre-tender requirements (is contractual and thus fixed), and the plan is a post-tender commitment to a specific deliverable/method of delivery (is procedural and thus changeable). Correct?
These terms preceded ISO definition (and will persist in different forms after it) so it would be good to clarify how they are most commonly used.

Hi @Bilal
also in UK and USA is a separate document. It is the reason why I was asking about the Australian situation as the definition is quite confusing in my opinion. In the USA and UK the BIM protocol can be used between client (appointing party) and consultant/contractor (lead appointed party) or contractor and subcontractor (lead appointed party and appointed party).

The BIM protocol is a fixed contractual document that is an addendum to contract.

On the contrary, the BEP is a live document and it is set by the consultant/contractor ( lead appointed party) in collaboration with the subcontractors (appointed parties).

1 Like

I agree with you @Marzia about the textbook ISO-inspired definitions. However, these are not always how these terms/documents are applied in different countries as you highlighted, hence my follow-up question for Sepanka to shed more light on their local interpretation of them. To push this idea further, the terms you mentioned (appointing party, appointed party, lead appoint…etc.) are mostly not recognised here. Once the A5 Localisation project is revisited in close alignment with the E6 Reference Library microproject, we will need to map these terms and Noteworthy Publications to minimise confusion. This is a Master’s degree worth of work so we’ll hopefully attract additional talent to help us improve the mapping and making more visual.

Thanks Bilal, the comment was not on using ISO terms, it was mainly on the content of the definition.
At the moment it seems that BIM protocol can be equal to BEP in Australia. Usually the BEP is set by who win a job and it is a live document. However, in other countries it is fix document that can be set by different parties, included the client.
I guess it is also the same situation in CZ.
Thus the definition should be improved to take into account this. We do not have to use ISO terms to improve it.
I hope it makes sense.


I appreciate this is an old discussion but I wanted to add a thought on ISO 19650 terminology. It is my opinion that there would be value in a plan for checking all terms in ISO 19650 against relevant terms in the bim dictionary. I would rather have a longer description for a term, which includes the relevant ISO term in context, than see the (opaque) result of a discussion about current terminology as it is used. If it is the goal of the bim dictionary to align terminology across national approaches then the alignment should be towards ISO terminology - including their national context.

Thank you @duncan. Yes absolutely, it is important to explain rather than just describe. The approach taken so far in that each term in the BIM Dictionary has a Summary Description which needs to be short, accurate, and does not conflict with other terms. There is set limit for the lengths of these Summary Descriptions to allow their efficient display in the dictionary and within other tools in the future (through an API call). This limits how much explaining and alignment can be done. However, many of the terms will have Extended Descriptions (refer to project A3 strategy) which will allow further alignment with applicable international standards. With respect to national context, this requires expanding the User Notes function so each country editor/representative can add and display such information based on user preference or IP address. This requires much work still but it is part of the platform development plan.

Hi @Bilal do you think that “virtual world” would be better than “virtual worlds”

. Not sure why it is plural. Thanks

Thanks. Both are correct, but the plural indicates multiple possibilities not just one virtual world. However, since we are using physical/virtual ‘space’ rather than ‘spaces’, then it is more consistent to uniformly use the singular. Replaced with “into the virtual world”. Thx