Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This review focuses on recent research literature on the use of Semantic Web Technologies (SWT) in city planning. The review foregrounds representational, evaluative, projective, and synthetical meta-practices as constituent practices of city planning. We structure our review around these four meta-practices that we consider fundamental to those processes. We find that significant research exists in all four metapractices. Linking across domains by combining various methods of semantic knowledge generation, processing, and management is necessary to bridge gaps between these meta-practices and will enable future Semantic City Planning Systems.

Keywords

urban planning semantic web knowledge graph ontology city information model decision support system

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanisation has resulted in the unprecedented growth in the size and number of cities world-wide (UN 2018). Urbanisation has produced a sharp rise in consumption of energy, land and metals and other raw materials. This, in turn, has increased green-house gas emissions that contribute to climate change (Swilling et al. 2018). Planning and managing the growth of cities today and into the future is widely regarded as essential if we are to address the challenge of climate change and the host of associated issues that underpin long-term livability and sustainability (Shukla et al. 2019).

Modern city planning emerged in nineteenth-century England, continental Europe and the United States alongside urbanisation and industrialisation. This modern city planning took shape as a response to new societal challenges triggered by those processes such as managing pollution, sanitation and public health, providing affordable housing for growing populations, integrating new utilities like gas and electricity, and delivering efficient urban transportation (Hein 2017b, 2). Planning developed hand-in-hand with new social scientific, statistical and cartographic techniques needed to empirically record the various social, economic and physical aspects of rapidly growing cities (Seto, Solecki and Griffith 2016; Habitat 2017; Hein 2017a).

The discipline also diversified in response to changing political and social mores in the twentieth century. This saw an increasing multisectoral outlook, with greater involvement of private sector interests and civil society through participatory planning movements. At the same time, a growing interdisciplinarity in planning was accompanied by a tendency towards fragmentation into various sub-disciplinary socioeconomic, environmental and physical design-oriented traditions (Oliveira and Pinho 2010; Gleye 2015; Hein 2017a). These demands, which focus directly on the empirical traditions of the discipline, concern improving the credibility, timeliness and diversity of evidence to support the planning of sustainable cities. Harnessing the rise of information communication technology (ICT), big data and artificial intelligence (AI) has been regarded as imperative to meet these demands (Townsend 2013; Trindade et al. 2017)).

City Planning (CP) has been integrating the growing availability of digital data. The rise of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and various digital planning support tools e-governance and entrepreneurial governance systems have become central the discipline (Batty 2013; Burger, van Oort and Meijers 2019; Stead 2021). Despite these recent advances, Batty (2017) and Helbing and Pournaras (2015) note that CP has yet to effectively harness the full possibilities of the ICT revolution. The exponential growth in quantity of data on cities and city processes, has been supported by improved capacities to store and manage those data and make them available to city-making stakeholders across the board. Even if these kinds of data are digitised and made available on websites, they remain relatively static and difficult to cross-reference and analyse (Laurian and Inch 2019). The many new digital tools that have emerged lack, as Dominic Stead puts it, a ‘framework for categorizing, analyzing, and comparing’ them (Stead 2021). Providing such a framework would rely on developing ‘a better system of validation and critical assimilation of scientific knowledge’ into city planning (Marshall 2012b, 267).

There are many possible reasons for the relative hesitancy of city planning to harness digital data. They may concern the way the discipline itself has tended to prioritise the craft of planning rather than tending to its scientific foundations (Marshall 2012b). They may also concern the relatively rigid sectoral disposition of the discipline in the face of the rising complexity of cities and growing interdependency of their social, political, ecological and material dimensions (Hein 2017a). This difficulty is underscored when considered in different contemporary geographical settings around the world where the processes of globalization are unfolding in such diverse ways (see Parnell (2020); Kusno (2020); and Abramson (2020) in context of Africa, China and Southeast Asia respectively). They may also concern the data themselves. Although more numerous, big data are typically sourced in many different formats, are stored in distinctive siloes, and managed in inconsistent ways.

This review focuses on the last of these possible reasons. It does so by focusing on recent developments in the field of Semantic Web Technology (SWT). SWT is an area of innovation in the digital revolution that offers a promising approach to solving the difficulties with data fragmentation and supporting the more effective use of big data in planning. SWT is promising in this context because it focuses on structuring and linking data, making it more searchable and accessible.

For the purposes of this review, we define CP in section 3.1 as a complex task that re- quires four Meta-Practices (MP) that occur simultaneously during CP processes: Representational MP, Evaluative MP, Projective MP, and Synthetical MP. Our purpose is to better support planning practice, and its ability to address the challenges of urbanisation, demographic shift and climate change with Semantic City Planning Systems (SCPS) at the intersection of CP and SWT - see figure 1.

Figure 1.

SCPS diagram.

In section 2 we provide a short overview of digital urban planning and describe how SWT present opportunities for CP and how planning-related knowledge is represented in this context. We explain and define SCPS as a necessary endeavor for future CP in section 3. We arrange the found literature and uncover research gaps that we present in section 4. We structure our findings along four MP with section 4.1 on Representational MP, section 4.2 on Evaluative MP, section 4.3 on Projective MP, and section 4.4 on Synthetical MP. We discuss and unify the found research niches under SCPS in section 5.

2. Background

This background section situates three main domains that form the foundation of SCPS: SWT in subsection 2.1 and their potential for CP, concepts of knowledge representation of planning and design processes in subsection 2.2, and an overview of the diverse state of the art of digital urban planning in subsection 2.3.

2.1. Semantic Web Technologies (SWT)

SWT are built on the concepts of linked data and semantic web. Linked data is data that is structured and interlinked with other data. The semantic web aims to make data on the web machine-readable and interpretable (Bizer, Heath and Berners-Lee 2009; Semantic Web 2015). Semantics relate to the study of meaning, reference, or ‘truth’ (Hale and Wright 1999) and can be formulated mathematically based in descriptive logic. The se- mantic web builds on the availability, accessibility of, and the relationship among, data (Semantic Web 2015). SWT are already transforming the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industries (Pauwels, Zhang and Lee 2017). SWT enable the representation of complex systems and can facilitate to represent everything of interest (i.e. cities and their components).

The following terms are crucial in understanding SWT and their potential for CP:

Knowledge Representation and Semantics By virtue of representing data and the relationship among them, based in descriptive logic, SWT enable more integrated knowledge representation. Semantics can be used to infer information from linked data and allow to set axioms or principles that define knowledge in specific domains. Naturally, many SWT concepts and approaches are fundamental to the discipline of Artificial Intelligence - particularly its field of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Levesque 1986).

Applied Ontology / Knowledge Domains Applied Ontology, also referred to as Computational Ontology, implies the application of ontological approaches (from the philosophical branch of Ontology) to specific knowledge domains, and is commonly practised in Information Science and Computer Science (Guarino 1995). An ontology represents a common vocabulary that is necessary for data and relationships among them to be understandable, meaningful and replicable. Web Ontology Language (OWL) is commonly used as knowledge representation language (schema) of the semantic web. Once a knowledge domain is identified, one can design, define, and compose ontologies for many different applications and purposes.

(Semantic) Triples / RDF / Graph Databases Information in the semantic web is stored in triples of ‘subject, predicate, object’ to describe the data and the relationship among them. Each triple can thus link to others, forming a web. Resource Description Framework (RDF) is the data modeling framework for the Semantic Web. For semantic CP, it is thus crucial to represent urban data (geo-location, 3D geometry, textures, attributes, dynamic data, etcetera) as RDF files. Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) is a query language for semantic webs designed to query data across systems and data-bases.

Knowledge Graph If data is represented as a node, and the semantic relation, guided by the common vocabulary or ontology, as their edge, then semantic webs can be represented as mathematical graphs of semantic triples. Knowledge Graphs (KG) represents the full integration of data and web structure of a semantic system. For CP this promises to overcome the fundamental challenges associated with current digital planning of ‘siloed’ expertise; fragmented, incomplete and inaccessible data; ill definition and large scale of problems (Pan et al. 2015). KG can for example enable a multi-scalar and multi-domain simulation (Pan et al. 2016; Eibeck, Lim and Kraft 2019) and the instantiation of Parallel Worlds (PW) scenarios (Eibeck et al. 2020).

Dynamic Knowledge Graph / agent systems in KG Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (DKG) are systems that can reconfigure the graph structure dynamically, in response to changing context, to new queries, or to their own increased knowledge, by way of multi agent systems embedded into the KG structure. Examples include industrial process engineering and chemistry processes represented with Artificial Intelligence (AI) composition agents to reconfigure the KG as needed (Zhou et al. 2019; Farazi et al. 2020).

2.2. Methods for Design Synthesis

Marshall (2012a, 192) argues to recognise “the positive benefits of a complex system of planning, capable of generating functional urban complexity”. CP is inherently interdisciplinary with implications on design (Marshall, Gong and Green 2019). The adage that planning deals with the basic question ‘How much of what goes where, and why?’ (Herthogs 2016, 25). CP necessarily works towards multiple objectives, establishing satisfactory syntheses that integrate information from multiple knowledge domains. Urban designers and planners have developed a wide range of strategies to design and manage urban projects of which we will list some attempts that explicate design processes using computational methods.

Design Heuristics In practice, designing and planning are routed in heuristic approaches and tacit knowledge formation that designers and planners acquire in their education and by experience. These increase the domain knowledge and expand the solution space for a design problem (Lösch, Dugdale and Demazeau 2009). Designers move from abstract idea elaboration and opportunity-seeking ‘design freedom’ to gradually more concrete solutions and reduction through decision-making ‘design solutions’ (Lösch, Dugdale and Demazeau 2009). Such knowledge based in human creativity is hard to systematise and replicate with computers. Hence, the aim of so-called ‘computational design’ is to enhance the work of designer with digital methods and tools.

Urban Elements First attempts to synthesise urban phenomena in ‘pattern languages’ and to collect them in thesaurus-like manner were made by Alexander (1964) and Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein (1977). Alexander's concept to draw urban information from observation and to infer ‘rules’, ‘elements’, or ‘actions’ for urban knowledge has been revisited by Lehnerer (2009); von Richthofen et al. (2018), and Cairns and Tunas (2017). Quickly, any system of elements requires a meta-system to be embedded in.

Design and Shape Grammars Shape grammars developed by Stiny and Gips (1971) consists of shape rules and generation mechanisms to create complex forms. Shape grammars can we used to explicate design processes. Shape grammars lead to the development of powerful 3D digital modeling tools. These tools based in procedural form generation (Müller 2010). These tools can assist in the automatic and procedural generation of large urban models based in urban development guidelines and zoning codes (von Richthofen 2018).

Design Space Exploration (DSE) Design Space Exploration (DSE) describes potential future event spaces and scenarios resulting from decisions in the past (Henchley 1978; Voros 2003). Similarly, planning can be seen as a temporal process of causal relationships in which data and information is gradually combined to form a better picture for decision making: CP unfolds in stages, creating, exploring, and evaluating possible design options, so called design spaces. DSE has been formalised by Fuchkina et al. (2018) and Pimentel (2017).

2.3. Digital Urban Planning

Digital urban planning forms a subset of CP and refers to modeling urban systems and urban forms, developing GIS, planning support systems, and spatial decision support systems, as well as City Information Modeling (CIM) tools.

Urban Modeling A first dynamic digital urban model for systems analysis as a tool for urban planning has been developed by Forrester (1969). Forrester suggested to look at urban systems as dynamic interplay of economic, spatial, and social aspects and to model these mathematically for urban simulations. Michael Batty and others built upon the work of Forrester to develop urban analysis models (Batty 1971, 2020).

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) GIS allow to represent 3D geographic information digitally (Tomlinson 1969). While a range of geo-processing methods are available to analyse and synthesise information, the data-format is limited in its capacity to store and link data. Besides their functionality for digital mapping and evaluation GIS have also proven to be reliable tools for participation (Keßler, Rinner and Raubal 2005; Hu et al. 2015).

Modeling urban form 3D digital modeling of urban forms is concerned with the generation of large and detailed urban geometries. Modeling urban form is based in the study of urban typologies and the observation that smaller forms are nested in larger forms following certain structures. Research focuses on the assembly of rules of typologies and structure to arrive at generative design of urban forms (Beirão et al. 2012; König et al. 2020b). The rule-based approach to urban modeling has been fast forwarded by Machine Learning (ML) techniques (Waddell et al. 2003; Chaillou 2019; Sidewalklabs 2020). As König et al. (2020a) noted, the combinatorial possibilities of automated form generation quickly outpace the possibilities of computers.

Planning and Decision Support Systems Planning and decision support systems are a collection of spatial analytical and simulation tools that allow to display (live) geo-spatial and temporal data about cities. These systems often have a ‘dashboard’ visual interface allowing decision makers and stakeholders to visualise, discuss and decide (Geertman and Stillwell 2004; Hasler 2019; Stead 2021).

Digital Urban Twins Digital twins complement planning and decision support systems with a virtual ‘twin’ or model to be used for the analytical and simulation work. Digital twins often incorporate large 3D urban models and link these to other city data bases such as cadastral information and census data (Ruston McAleer, Kogut and Raes 2020). Examples of digital twins include Center for Digital Built Britain and University of Cambridge (2020) and Collaborative Interactive Visualisation Laboratory (CIVAL) (2020), and the digital twin for the city of Zürich (Schrotter and Hürzeler 2020).

City Information Modeling (CIM) City modeling focusses on modeling form and texture for cities. City Information Modeling (CIM) emphasises the information aspect and aims to include other data sources such as cadastral information, socio-economic, climatic, environmental, traffic and other data into com- prehensive urban models (Gil 2020). Challenges to CIM include the problems of lacking data-interoperability and hindered machine processing. For this, CIM are gradually including SWT to overcome these problems (Stojanovski 2018).

3. Methodology

In this paper, we argue that SWT is particularly suited to support the synthetic, multi- domain goals and tasks of CP. In order to develop a clearer picture of relevant literature, the present section introduces and uses the term SCPS to indicate possible interfaces be- tween planning and SWT. From this definition, we develop a framework for SCPS to help define the scope of a search through literature, in order to build up a collection of relevant literature.

3.1. Defining and Scoping SCPS

We define SCPS as ‘possible uses of SWT to support the process of CP practice’. The practice of planning happens at many different scales, resulting in many related terms, such as regional planning, spatial planning, urban planning, town planning, master planning, infrastructure planning, or urban design, amongst others. Planning is also performed for particular subsets of domains, often systems, e.g. transportation, sanitation, or other planning, and in professional categories, e.g. architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, or urbanism. In essence, every one of these disciplines represents a planning process related to cities. We argue that despite the immense variety of activities involved in planning practice, all are essentially anchored in meta-practices – representational, evaluative, projective - in addition to knowledge management as synthetical meta-practice. Knowledge management was previously implicitly incorporated into the representational, evaluative and projective meta-practices. As it is now being enhanced by ICT, big data, and AI, we argue it is necessary to explicitly emphasise knowledge management as a separate meta-practice in planning processes. As we defined SCPS as the use of SWT to support CP processes, we developed a framework of four meta-practices (MP). These MP are common to all planning processes and are meant to facilitate navigating the conceptual space of planning and our scoping of and search for literature. They should not be considered mechanical or formulaic planning devices or standardised routines; these Meta-Practices are inherently interconnected, occur simultaneously, and not in a particular order:

Representational MP is the act of representing urban systems (i.e. urban environments and their parts and processes). These representations are most often visual in nature. Representational MP can be of an entire urban systems or parts of it, representing the totality of that system (e.g. ‘digital twins’) or a selection of its properties (e.g. 3D models, maps, evaluation results, …).

Evaluative MP is the act of evaluating properties of an urban environment, deter- mining whether they satisfy particular requirements or accomplish goals. Evaluative MP can assess various aspects of urban systems, such as single states (e.g. calculating the permeability of street networks), continuous property changes (e.g. measuring temperature over time), processes (e.g. simulating carbon emissions), or multiple criteria (e.g. a strengths weaknesses opportunities threats (SWOT) analysis of a site and its properties).

Projective MP is the act of creating specifications of new urban systems or their parts, based on an envisioned or desired (future) urban system or its properties. Projective MP can be performed at many scales (e.g. regional plans, master plans, urban design proposals, transport plans), and are often proposed adaptations of existing urban systems.

Synthetical MP is the act of managing, gathering, using, creating, and synthesising data, information, and knowledge about the urban systems that are planned. Though perhaps not often explicitly mentioned, planning processes inherently rely on flows of information, involving actions such as gathering site information, requesting data from various instances or specialists, retrieving past proposals or decisions, documenting processes and methods, building data repositories, or communicating with stakeholders.

We defined these four MP to help structure our literature review, and labeled our sources according to which MP they contributed to (see section 3.2). Ontologically speaking, we consider these four MP ‘domain-agnostic’, i.e. relating to Design in a general sense. Naturally, our description of MP implies that many sources relate to multiple MP. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and brevity, our review places each source under the singular MP most relevant to it. However, this decision does not imply we consider any of the MP as exclusive categories; inherently, planning processes - and hence SCPS literature - will combine all four MP.

However, we argue our introduction of four MP categories has Ontological merit, as it enabled us to highlight and explain the main emphases, goals, and ambitions of particular literature. For example, the framework helped explain links between particular fields and particular meta-practices, such as Geography-related literature strongly focusing on advancing Representation using SWT, or Urban Design literature developing workflows for Projective MP (Creation), for example. In this sense, the MP can be considered as four ‘perspectives’ from which to view the SCPS literature.

3.2. Building a Collection of SCPS Literature

This literature review looks into the body of literature that is the intersection between literature on SWT and literature on CP. Moreover, the reviewed collection is naturally bounded in time, covering literature up to and including 2020 (as well as three publications from early 2021). Nevertheless, the selected body of work allows us to review the topic, provide an overview existing result, discuss different sub-topics and the weight of their coverage, and identify research gaps.

We searched for relevant literature in multiple repositories, using several approaches, the combination of which resulted in a collection of SCPS literature, which we discuss below. The collection for this literature review was built drawing on:

The authors’ pre-existing collection of literature (being researchers studying SCPS).

Various conjunctive keyword queries in Scopus and Google Scholar, exploring the intersections of particular topics (each ‘topic’ represented by a set of related terms):

– ‘City Planning’ AND ‘Semantic Web Technology’

– ‘Planning’ AND ‘Semantic Web Technology’

– ‘City’ AND ‘Semantic Web Technology’

– Each of four ‘Meta-Practices’ AND ‘Semantic Web Technology’

Keyword searches for terms related to SWT in CumInCAD (a repository of key conferences and journals related to computer aided architectural design).

Papers suggested by Google Scholar and ResearchGate's recommendation engines.

Manual crawling of bibliographies and citation chains from particularly relevant papers.

While searching the literature, all sources about ‘the use of SWT to support the process of CP’ (i.e. SCPS) were manually selected for our review collection.

Some of the topics included in our scope and selection do not explicitly mention SWT and CP, nevertheless demonstrate the potential use of SWT to support CP processes. For example, a large part of the body of research on city information modeling format CityGML does not directly relate to SWT, despite its core structure being inherently semantic and ontological (Gröger and Plümer 2012) and its next version (Kutzner, Chaturvedi and Kolbe 2020) demonstrating a much closer connection to core SWT practices (see also section 4.1). Also included are sources about planning supported by proto-technologies predating SWT as a field.

4. Reviewing the state of the art of SCPS

We structure our review of the state of the art of SCPS per MP and collect the literature in four sections and tables. Each section starts by introducing relevant application domains and the contributions to SCPS identified in the literature. The tables in each section are organised by domain, contribution to SCPS, and source.

4.1. Representational MP

The following section covers the Representational MP, presented in table 1. We identified ‘foundations’ and ‘applications’ of SCPS Representations:

Foundations (table 1, part 1) include building information model (BIM)-GIS integration to improve interoperability and enable cross-domain representation from one sphere (e.g. AEC) to another (e.g. cities and geoinformation). The integration and linking of dynamic data aims to capture temporal and periodic data coming from Internet of Things (IoT) data or big data. The visualisation of non-spatial data - such as consensus data or metadata

- is of growing interest. Semantic enrichment is concerned with adding meaning to data in a new context and domain of application and to allow for semantic querying. The foundations also include representation standards based in CityGML (2020).

Applications (table 1, part 2) relate to the development of city models with various functionalities, for instance various Level of Detail (LoD), additional city information, and dashboard compilation of ‘vital signs’ to assist CP and management. The idea of a ‘world avatar’ is arguably the widest concept to represent ‘everything’ of interest to an urban model based on SWT.

Table 1.
Literature for the Representational MP.

Domain Contribution to SCPS Authors (Year)

Foundations of SCPS Representation

BIM-GIS Data Integration and Representation Improve data interoperability and conversion, enable cross domain representation Donkers et al. (2016), Wang, Pan and Luo (2019), Konde et al. (2018), Tauscher, Lim and Stouffs (2021), Hor et al. (2018), and Biljecki et al. (2021)

Representing Dynamic Data Integration of domain data, linking data, graph transformation, data population Tempelmeier et al. (2019), Chaturvedi and Kolbe (2016), Yao and Kolbe (2017), and Rowland, Folmer and Beek (2020)

Representation Standards Modeling standards and specifications for representation in CityGML and CityJSON Kutzner, Chaturvedi and Kolbe (2020), Kumar et al. (2019), and Stadler et al. (2009)

Semantic Enrichment for Representation Semantic enrichment of models, create domain ontologies, spatio-semantic coherence, semantic integration, semantic queries Wang, Fan and Zhou (2020), Billen (2011), Schwab, Beil and Kolbe (2020), Yao et al. (2020), and Lim, Tauscher and Biljecki (2019)

Applications of SCPS Representation

City Dashboards Dashboard overview, Dashboards for creation, evaluation and data visualisation Santos et al. (2017) and Chen et al. (2018)

City Models City model representation, informing domain ontologies, spatial ontologies, support level of details, applications, standards, visualisation Bonduel et al. (2019), Billen et al. (2012), Li et al. (2016), Chaturvedi et al. (2017), Chaturvedi, Yao and Kolbe (2019), and Julin et al. (2018)

Digital Twins Support urban development and land management use cases, design optimisation Boje et al. (2020) and Montenegro et al. (2011)

World Avatars Build a ‘World Avatar’ environment Eibeck et al. (2020) and Sabag Muñoz and Gladek (2017)

Domain	Contribution to SCPS	Authors (Year)
Foundations of SCPS Representation
BIM-GIS Data Integration and Representation	Improve data interoperability and conversion, enable cross domain representation	Donkers et al. (2016), Wang, Pan and Luo (2019), Konde et al. (2018), Tauscher, Lim and Stouffs (2021), Hor et al. (2018), and Biljecki et al. (2021)
Representing Dynamic Data	Integration of domain data, linking data, graph transformation, data population	Tempelmeier et al. (2019), Chaturvedi and Kolbe (2016), Yao and Kolbe (2017), and Rowland, Folmer and Beek (2020)
Representation Standards	Modeling standards and specifications for representation in CityGML and CityJSON	Kutzner, Chaturvedi and Kolbe (2020), Kumar et al. (2019), and Stadler et al. (2009)
Semantic Enrichment for Representation	Semantic enrichment of models, create domain ontologies, spatio-semantic coherence, semantic integration, semantic queries	Wang, Fan and Zhou (2020), Billen (2011), Schwab, Beil and Kolbe (2020), Yao et al. (2020), and Lim, Tauscher and Biljecki (2019)
Applications of SCPS Representation
City Dashboards	Dashboard overview, Dashboards for creation, evaluation and data visualisation	Santos et al. (2017) and Chen et al. (2018)
City Models	City model representation, informing domain ontologies, spatial ontologies, support level of details, applications, standards, visualisation	Bonduel et al. (2019), Billen et al. (2012), Li et al. (2016), Chaturvedi et al. (2017), Chaturvedi, Yao and Kolbe (2019), and Julin et al. (2018)
Digital Twins	Support urban development and land management use cases, design optimisation	Boje et al. (2020) and Montenegro et al. (2011)
World Avatars	Build a ‘World Avatar’ environment	Eibeck et al. (2020) and Sabag Muñoz and Gladek (2017)

4.2. Evaluative MP

The literature for the Evaluative MP is organised in table 2. We group the literature in this section according to the various states of evaluation: single or multi-criteria; monitoring; and modeling:

Single or multi-criteria evaluation assesses to what extent one or more characteristics of an urban system have reached a certain target. Multi-criteria evaluation is applicable to complex assessment and reasoning tasks as well as to the development of ontologies.

Monitoring refers to reporting and evaluating data-streams. Monitoring allows to link various data streams and feeds into platforms for urban analytics and semantic data integration for CIM.

Modeling and Simulation refer to assessing time frames within which states change. Modeling tackles dynamic data integration as way to represent the multiple and temporal data-streams. Modeling for urban micro-climatic analysis as well as systems modeling are cited use cases.

Table 2.
Literature for the Evaluative MP.

Domain Contribution to SCPS Authors (Year)

Single or multi-criteria evaluation

Decision support Spatial decision support, design support systems, form-based assessment, qualitative comparative analysis Lee et al. (2019), Miltiades and Angelides (2018), and Verweij and Trell (2019)

Semantic assessment Semantic environmental assessment, verification, formalisation and evaluation Trento and Fioravanti (2010), Lai and Zoppi (2011), Kamsu-Foguem et al. (2019), and Massaro et al. (2020)

Sustainability assessment Graph-based ontology reasoning, environmental assessment of urban energy usage, reduction in CO₂ Kamsu-Foguem et al. (2019), Konys (2018), Lombardini (2016), Lai and Zoppi (2011), Kardinal Jusuf (2017), and Madrazo, Sicilia and Gamboa (2012)

Monitoring

Dynamic data evaluation Analysis of social media content, semantic enrichment of big data Gao et al. (2017) and Pittaras et al. (2019)

Evaluation platforms Platform for urban analytics and semantic data integration for 3D city models Psyllidis et al. (2015) and Z. Yao et al. (2018)

Modeling and Simulation

Process data evaluation Temporal data, spatio-semantic modeling, for 3D city models Kaňuk, Gallay and Hofierka (2015) and Schwab, Beil and Kolbe (2020)

Domain	Contribution to SCPS	Authors (Year)
Single or multi-criteria evaluation
Decision support	Spatial decision support, design support systems, form-based assessment, qualitative comparative analysis	Lee et al. (2019), Miltiades and Angelides (2018), and Verweij and Trell (2019)
Semantic assessment	Semantic environmental assessment, verification, formalisation and evaluation	Trento and Fioravanti (2010), Lai and Zoppi (2011), Kamsu-Foguem et al. (2019), and Massaro et al. (2020)
Sustainability assessment	Graph-based ontology reasoning, environmental assessment of urban energy usage, reduction in CO₂	Kamsu-Foguem et al. (2019), Konys (2018), Lombardini (2016), Lai and Zoppi (2011), Kardinal Jusuf (2017), and Madrazo, Sicilia and Gamboa (2012)
Monitoring
Dynamic data evaluation	Analysis of social media content, semantic enrichment of big data	Gao et al. (2017) and Pittaras et al. (2019)
Evaluation platforms	Platform for urban analytics and semantic data integration for 3D city models	Psyllidis et al. (2015) and Z. Yao et al. (2018)
Modeling and Simulation
Process data evaluation	Temporal data, spatio-semantic modeling, for 3D city models	Kaňuk, Gallay and Hofierka (2015) and Schwab, Beil and Kolbe (2020)

Projective MP

The literature for the Projective MP contains the least number of references - and we identify a clear lack of literature here. We attribute this to the fact that creation in design and planning processes is still under-researched and ambiguous (Cross 2007). To overcome this problem, systems of design or design frameworks have been developed (Coyne et al. 1990). Design Space Exploration (DSE) stands out as a strategy for automated exploration, evaluation, and optimisation of design solutions. Automated creation includes generative computational urban design and planning approaches. The linkage between shape grammars for urban form generation and ontologies promises to automate urban form generation. The literature organised in table 3 thus refers to generative processes of creating data, information and knowledge related to planning.

4.3. Synthetical MP

The literature is organised in table 4. This section contains the most references found at the intersection of SWT and CP. The synthetical MP that involves knowledge management enables data interoperability because all data is represented in ontologies that represent the semantic meaning of the data, rather than just their values. It further enables computational interpretation and synthesis, because all data has semantic meaning that is machine readable. It promises to open advanced planning support options, such as parallel simulation of multiple scenarios, automated generation of visualisations and analyses, knowledge inference, and iterative learning.

Table 3.
Literature for the Projective MP.

Domain Contribution to SCPS Authors (Year)

DSE frameworks Systematic and automated design space frameworks including temporalities and complexities Lin (2015) and Engel (2019)

Generative design systems Generative computational urban design and planning Montenegro and Duarte (2009) and Montenegro et al. (2012)

Scenario design Ontology-based platform for cross-domain scenarios in process industry Eibeck, Lim and Kraft (2019)

Semantic design systems Ontologies and shape grammars towards semantic design systems Grobler et al. (2008) and De Klerk and Beirao (2016)

Semantic evaluation and creation tools Semantic analysis and creation Caneparo, Berta and Rolfo (2020), Gomes et al. (2012), and Armeni et al. (2016)

Semantic enrichment Semantic enrichment of 3D city models, ontology alignment in the urban domain Calabretto et al. (2011), Wiegand (2012), Bonduel et al. (2019), Wagner et al. (2020), and Mai et al. (2020)

Domain	Contribution to SCPS	Authors (Year)
DSE frameworks	Systematic and automated design space frameworks including temporalities and complexities	Lin (2015) and Engel (2019)
Generative design systems	Generative computational urban design and planning	Montenegro and Duarte (2009) and Montenegro et al. (2012)
Scenario design	Ontology-based platform for cross-domain scenarios in process industry	Eibeck, Lim and Kraft (2019)
Semantic design systems	Ontologies and shape grammars towards semantic design systems	Grobler et al. (2008) and De Klerk and Beirao (2016)
Semantic evaluation and creation tools	Semantic analysis and creation	Caneparo, Berta and Rolfo (2020), Gomes et al. (2012), and Armeni et al. (2016)
Semantic enrichment	Semantic enrichment of 3D city models, ontology alignment in the urban domain	Calabretto et al. (2011), Wiegand (2012), Bonduel et al. (2019), Wagner et al. (2020), and Mai et al. (2020)

Table 4.

Literature for the Synthetical MP.

Domain	Contribution to SCPS	Authors (Year)
Linked Data
Context-based data	Context-based ontologies for urban data, semantic change detection, linked data vocabularies	Med and Křemen (2017), Pittaras et al. (2019), McGlinn et al.McGlinn et al. (n.d.), Hoare et al. (2020), and Med and Křemen (2017)
Data structuring	Data structuring, development of knowledge bases, self-organisation	Lin and Chiu (2008), Zhang et al. (2018), and Chen et al. (2018)
Dynamic data	Spatial granularity, dynamism, representation of data	Zhang et al. (2018), Fonseca et al. (2002), van Dam and Keirstead (2010), Chaturvedi et al. (2017), and Espinoza-Arias et al. (2019)
Semantic extension of data	Interoperability, extension, integration and linkage of data	Métral et al. (2011) and Psyllidis (2015)
Spatial semantic data	Spatial semantic planning databases, ontology driven GIS, access methods and dynamic database extension	Yao and Kolbe (2017) and Karalis, Mandilaras and Koubarakis (2019)
Semantic Knowledge Management
Management of semantic data	Management, analysis, and visualisation platforms for semantic 3D city data and models	Psyllidis et al. (2015), Komninos et al. (2016), and Yao et al. (2018)
Semantic decision support	Semantic spatial decision support system, urban information frameworks, planning informatics	Plume and John (2011)
Semantic enrichment	Semantic alignment, enrichment, integration and verification of data	Tardy, Moccozet and Falquet (2012) and Iwaniak et al. (2016)
Semantic feed-back and communication	Feedback and communication for knowledge management for planning support systems	Murgante and Garramone (2013) and Ruikar et al. (2007)
Semantic knowledge generation	Knowledge generation and retrieval, knowledge graphs, knowledge formalisation and representation	Karalis, Mandilaras and Koubarakis (2019) and Bereta, Xiao and Koubarakis (2019)
Semantic spatial modeling	Representation of urban space using semantic urban modeling	Billen (2011) and Berta et al. (2016)
Semantic support applications	Semantic support for Smart City and IoT applications	Métral, Falquet and Cutting-Decelle (2009), Zhao and Wang (2015), Komninos et al. (2016), Guo et al. (2018), Katsumi and Fox (2019), and Baracho et al. (2019)
Semantic urban models	Knowledge management and ontology development for semantic urban models	Teller et al. (2007), Caneparo et al. (2007), Berdier and Roussey (2007), Guyot, Falquet and Teller (2010), and Biljecki et al. (2015)
Semantic urban planning	Semantic urban planning, land use and land cover management, planning ontologies, allocation-related master-planning actions	Montenegro and Duarte (2009), Gomes et al. (2012), Soon (2012), Kaczmarek, Iwaniak and Łukowicz (2014), Ahlqvist et al. (2018), and Ronzhin et al. (2019)
Development of Domain Ontologies
Domain ontology development techniques	Semantic data integration for urban analytics, coupling ontologies and urban design guidelines, capture spatio-temporal phenomena	Psyllidis (2015), Huang and Harrie (2019), Corry et al. (2015), and Cao and Hall (2020)
Domain ontology development based on dynamic data	Ontology-based GIS and big data analysis	Chaidron, Billen and Teller (2007), Gao et al. (2017), and Fischer, McCall and Morch (1990)
Searches and Information Queries
Data city indicators and frameworks	Uniting ontology-based geodata and geovisual analytics	Santos et al. (2017) and Ding et al. (2020)
Knowledge access and discovery	Knowledge access and discovery systems, spatial knowledge retrieval	Lacasta et al. (2007), Langenhan (2011), and Mai et al. (2020)
Semantic querying and answering	Spatio-semantic query, answering geo-analytical questions	Daum, Borrmann and Kolbe (2017) and Scheider et al. (2020)
Processes, Systems, and Agents
Agent composition frameworks	Agent composition frameworks for automated knowledge retrieval	Zhou et al. (2019)
Dynamic Knowledge Graph (DKG)	DKG for cross-domain scenarios development, PW built on ontologies and linked data	Eibeck, Lim and Kraft (2019)
Knowledge management and planning support in ontologies	Knowledge management and planning support tools for urban typologies, genres, patterns, and urban design heuristics	Teller et al. (2007), Montenegro and Duarte (2009), Murgante and Scorza (2011), and Gao et al. (2017)
Smart City representation in ontologies	Smart City representation based in ontologies	Psyllidis (2015), Psyllidis et al. (2015), Komninos et al. (2016), and Aloufi and Alawfi (2019)
System architecture design of ontologies	Ontological design of system architecture	Kaza and Hopkins (2007) and Falquet et al. (2011)

The Synthetical MP provides a clear foundation for SCPS: linked data allows to perform context-based and network proximity analysis; data structuring forms the base for self-organisation of knowledge bases; fundamental challenges of data interopreability can seemingly be resolved. The management of large and complex 3D urban data appears possible with the application of semantics to spatial concepts, urban modeling, communication, decision support, and knowledge generation. Further knowledge domains can be linked in via ontology development techniques and frameworks. We structure this section into Linked Data and Data Processing; Development of Domain Ontologies; Searches and Information Queries; and Processes, Systems, and Agents.

Linked Data addresses the core challenge of interoperability from a knowledge management perspective. It covers context-based data detection, dynamic data, spatial granularity, and management:

Semantic Knowledge Management covers semantic strategies for enrichment and spatial data integration.

Development of Domain Ontologies follows similar topics with a focus of ontology creation and applications arising from it. These include knowledge generation, semantic design and decision support, semantic urban models and semantic urban planning.

Searches and Information Queries relate to data structuring, as well as semantic querying and answering as methods to infer knowledge based on the descriptive logic of SWT.

Processes, Systems, and Agents gathers literature around dynamic systems, agent compositions and systems architecture. Together, they support Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (DKG) for cross-domain scenarios - or Parallel Worlds (PW).

5. Discussion

5.1. Reflecting on the scope of this review

We represented the scope of this paper as the intersection between SWT and CP. However SWT and CP should not be interpreted as monolithic conceptual wholes. The former's ability to support the latter will much more likely be demonstrated in terms of how particular components or methods of SWT support particular aspects or applications of CP - in the reviewed literature, this is almost exclusively the case. Hence, CP could adopt specific SWT principles or methods that best suit particular applications, domains, or Meta-Practices.

In addition, the potential benefits of applying SWT to CP should also be considered in terms of different ‘levels of technology’, going from simply creating a unified knowledge base of existing CP data (e.g. Ronzhin et al. 2019; Chadzynski et al. 2021a), over the automation of basic information gathering tasks in planning (e.g. Chadzynski et al. 2021), the ability to use novel or more performant multi-domain queries (e.g. Ronzhin et al. 2019; Grisiute et al. 2021), or extending our Ontological representations of planning knowledge (e.g. Montenegro et al. 2012; Katsumi and Fox 2019), to advanced applications such as setting up urban digital twins (e.g. Akroyd et al. 2021), running Parallel World simulations for planning (e.g. Eibeck et al. 2020) or integrating a CP AI through self-organising multi-agent systems (e.g. Zhou et al. 2019; Chadzynski et al. 2021b).

These more advanced applications of SWT highlight the role SCPS could play in pro- viding stepping stones for the ongoing integration of AI in planning tools, particularly approaches related to Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (e.g. to perform multi- domain reasoning across urban knowledge domains, or to develop assistive natural language processing interfaces for planners to interact with) or self-learning multi-agent systems (e.g. to explore design spaces for planning proposals, to automate urban scientific model calibrations using dynamic urban data-sets, or to simulate future development scenarios and trajectories). Of course, the integration of AI in human tools, particularly those tools supporting resource distribution decisions, brings with it a need to define and establish new boundaries, interfaces, and workflows of human-computer interaction. Such a discussion also needs to include on how to handle errors and limits of SWT while using such tools (Janowicz et al. 2016) A detailed discussion of the impacts of SCPS on the integration of AI and CP and the novel human-computer interactions that come with it is out of the scope of the present paper. Nevertheless, such discussions are already taking place and will only increase throughout the coming years - city governments, for example in Singapore (Huang 2021), are already developing AI tools and integrating SWT approaches to expand and strengthen the capacities of city planners. With this paper, we offer a framework to situate SCPS more clearly and its underlying technologies within the rapidly emerging paradigm of AI-supported planning tools.

5.2. Discussing gaps in literature and future directions

In the section 4 reviewing the state of the art of SCPS we found that the Representational MP 4.1 foregrounded visual information. This has many research and industry applications outside CP as visual information is essential for navigation and mapping. The Evaluative MP 4.2 focused on evaluating static data first and then moving onto more complex data and dynamic data. The Projective MP 4.3 collected basic practices of evidence-based planning support. This MP suffers from the complexity of planning tasks that often rely on dynamic processes that are not always visual or for that matter visible. We thus argue that the gaps point to three interconnected aspects of 1) Challenging visual primacy, 2) Moving from static to ‘live’, and 3) Evidence-based planning support systems based on city-science.

Challenging visual primacy: The empirical traditions of CP point towards a primacy of the visual to analyse, plan, and manage cities. This is evident is mapping, planning, and management tools that foreground 2D and 3D data that can be controlled by human vision. This has led to a suite of tools capable of doing just that: Assisting the human vision in controlling visually detectable aspects of cities in detail. The Representational MP is ripe with methods to assist in visualising urban information. Yet, urban data is not per se only visual. Further research is necessary blending spatial and non-spatial information and enhancing future CIM with non-visual data. This would include potentially all open urban data to be linked to the semantic systems.

From static to ‘live’: Many urban digital twins are built a static understanding of cities. This is routed in the conception of cities as large and mostly built artifacts where city dynamics are either framed as invisible (small, intangible, hidden, etc.) or where city dynamic relate to historic timespans beyond the individual actions (50 years plan, vision plan, etc.). Yet, anybody living in a city will agree that any form of action will entail a suite of dynamic exchanges (material, energetic, digital). Planning cities thus needs to shift from static to ‘live’ urban twins. DKG powered by SWT enable just that. This would also transform the evaluative MP being able to monitor urban change in and to derive long- term indicators (e.g., the idea of ‘heartbeats of the city’). Designers and planners also require intuitive and flexible tools while DKG should enable smooth interaction between users and the system to learn and improve itself using AI while the foundations for a DKG, built on SWT, linked open data and AI, are already available.

Evidence-based planning support systems based on city-science: The growing interest in data and evidence to support planning decisions point towards a set of gaps in the literature. Current digital city planning and support systems struggle with the complexity of urban systems. Conventional and digitally assisted CP addresses this challenge with heuristics to use data from one source to infer knowledge about actions on urban domains. When scale and complexity increase, and simple heuristics fail CP developed strategies for multi-criteria decision making tasks. Yet there is no knowledge about the causal relationship between data and action, and, as Marshall puts it, CP is still operating as a pseudo-science rather than a city science. Testing the effects of measures also takes a lot of time, while KG can invoke parallel worlds in which alternatives can be tested and observed while linking in real words data. In other words, a different dataset could have prompted similar/or different actions, and/or similar actions could have resulted in no significant changes. More research is needed to find causal relations between data captured on one hand and actions triggered on the other. Research is needed to capture, process, and align urban data to be dynamic and available in quasi real-time for urban systems or their components. To achieve this, we need better data-processing techniques to derive meaningful and actionable indicators possible with SWT. A further aspect is the discovery of links between datasets and between data and MP also possible with SWT with the development of agents and artificial intelligence. SWT could support evidence-based planning support by automatically retrieving information and inferring knowledge in dynamic settings and therefore putting cities-science built on a SWT framework within reach.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we offer a rationale for planners to take note of SWT and their promising applications to help address some of the fundamental challenges of the practice of CP and a relevant field within digital innovation. We present four meta-practices, Representational MP, Evaluative MP, Projective MP, Synthetical MP, expanding the disciplinary triad of representation, evaluation, and projection with the data-synthetic meta-practice emerging to address of the rise of ICT, big data, and AI in relation to planning. We create these four MP to gather dispersed research and join it by related themes. We identify emergent traits in the Synthetical MP literature, for it is the largest and most recent body of research. In contrast, the three others build up on disciplinary traits of design and planning. The tetrahedral model of meta-practices introduced in this paper (see figure 1) will allow to develop future SCPS. We argue that CP is predisposed to be adopt some form of SWT - as it becomes ever more aware of the growing interdependencies of cities - resulting from the greater scale, accelerated pace, and complexity of cities - that is currently met with disciplinary fragmentation. In the discussion section we propose effective areas for further studies. We hope this framework helps to clarify a multitude of approaches that, with this study, may be better understood in the future by the scientific community.

The presented literature on SCPS - at the intersection of CP and SWT - is thus not meant to be a ‘mechanical’ recipe for planning, but a guide to bring closer two groups of readers to the field of SCPS: geographers, city planners and urban studies scholars on one side - and data scientists, software developers and programmers on the other. We believe that the sketched synthesis between CP and SWT is going to be a new frontier for planning in the near future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore (grant number NRF2019-THE001-0004).

ORCID iD

Aurel von Richthofen

References

Abramson

Daniel

. 2020. “Uses of Planning History in China.” In The Routledge Handbook of Planning History, edited by Hein

Carola

, 260–72. London: Taylor / Francis.

Ahlqvist

Ola

Varanka

Dalia

Fritz

Steffen

Janowicz

Krzysztof

Varanka

Dalia

Fritz

Steffen

Janowicz

Krzysztof

. 2018. Land Use and Land Cover Semantics: Principles, Best Practices, and Prospects. Boca Raton: CRC Press. October. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351228596.

Akroyd

Jethro

Mosbach

Sebastian

Bhave

Amit

Kraft

Markus

. 2021. “Universal Digital Twin - A Dynamic Knowledge Graph.” Data-Centric Engineering 2: 2. https://doi.org/10/gm5kc6. ISSN: 2632- 6736.

Alexander

Christopher

. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.

Alexander

Christopher

Ishikawa

Sara

Silverstein

Murray

. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Boston: Oxford University Press.

Aloufi

Khalid

Alawfi

Hind

. 2019. Smart Proximity: annotating the Proximity of Entities in a Smart City Ontology (December).

Armeni

Iro

Sener

Ozan

Zamir

Amir R.

Jiang

Helen

Brilakis

Ioannis

Fischer

Martin

Savarese

Silvio

. 2016. “3D Semantic Parsing of Large-Scale Indoor Spaces.” In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 1534–1543, Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE, June. https://doi.org/10/ggn889.

Baracho

Renata Maria Abrantes

Soergel

Dagobert

Pereira Junior

Mario Lucio

Henriques

Mariana Almeida

. 2019. “A Proposal for Developing a Comprehensive Ontology for Smart Cities / Smart Buildings / Smart Life.” In The 10th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics, March.

Batty

Michael

. 1971. “Modeling Cities as Dynamic Systems.” Nature 231 (5303 (June)): 425–8. https://doi.org/10/fgdwvd. ISSN: 0028-0836, 1476-4687.

10.

Batty

Michael

. 2013. “Defining Geodesign ( = GIS + Design ?).” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40 (1): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1068/b4001ed.

11.

Batty

Michael

. 2017. The new Science of Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press. 2020.

12.

Batty

Michael

. 2020. “Defining Complexity in Cities.” In Theories and Models of Urbanization, edited by Pumain

Denise

, 13–26. Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36656-8_2.

13.

Beirão

José

Duarte

José

Stouffs

Rudi

Bekkering

Henco

. 2012. “Designing with Urban Induction Patterns: A Methodological Approach.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39 (4 (August)): 665–82. https://doi.org/10/gc3j7q. ISSN: 0265-8135.

14.

Berdier

Chantal

Roussey

Catherine

. 2007. “Urban Ontologies: The Towntology Proto- Type Towards Case Studies.” In Ontologies for Urban Development, 61:1–14. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Studies in Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71976-2.

15.

Bereta

Konstantina

Xiao

Guohui

Koubarakis

Manolis

. 2019. “Ontop-spatial: Ontop of Geospatial Databases.” Journal of Web Semantics 58 (October): 1–13. https://doi.org/10/ggtdjc. ISSN: 15708268.

16.

Berta

Mauro

Caneparo

Luca

Montuori

Alfonso

Rolfo

Davide

. 2016. “Semantic Urban Modeling: Knowledge Representation of Urban Space.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43 (4 (July)): 610–39. https://doi.org/10/f8vvxj. ISSN: 0265-8135.

17.

Biljecki

Filip

Lim

Joie

Crawford

James

Moraru

Diana

Tauscher

Helga

Konde

Amol

Adouane

Kamel

Lawrence

Simon

Janssen

Patrick

Stouffs

Rudi

. 2021. “Extending CityGML for IFC-Sourced 3D City Models.” Automation in Construction 121 (January): 1–14. https://doi.org/10/ghj5tc. ISSN: 09265805.

18.

Biljecki

Filip

Stoter

Jantien

Ledoux

Hugo

Zlatanova

Sisi

Çöltekin

Arzu

. 2015. “Applications of 3D City Models: State of the Art Review.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 4 (4 (December)): 2842–89. https://doi.org/10/ggj6tw. ISSN: 2220-9964.

19.

Billen

Roland

. 2011. Semantic enrichment of 3D city models for sustainable urban development .

20.

Billen

Zaki

Servières

Moreau

Hallot

. 2012. “Developing an Ontology of Space: Application to 3D City Modeling.” In Usage, Usability, and Utility of 3D City Models – European COST Action TU0801, edited by Leduc

Moreau

Billen

, 1–14. Nantes, France: EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10/ggm87h.

21.

Bizer

Christian

Heath

Tom

Berners-Lee

Tim

. 2009. “Linked Data - The Story So Far.” International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 5 (3): 1–22. https://doi.org/10/fc8zjt. ISSN: 1552-6283.

22.

Boje

Calin

Guerriero

Annie

Kubicki

Sylvain

Rezgui

Yacine

. 2020. “Towards a Semantic Construction Digital Twin: Directions for Future Research.” Automation in Construction 114 (June): 1–16. https://doi.org/10/ggvkpm. ISSN: 09265805.

23.

Bonduel

Mathias

Wagner

Anna

Pauwels

Pieter

Vergauwen

Maarten

Klein

Ralf

. 2019. “Including widespread geometry formats in semantic graphs using RDF literals.” Proceedings of the 2019 European Conference for Computing in Construction, 341–350. European Council on Computing in Construction. https://doi.org/10/ghcrn9.

24.

Burger

Martijn

van Oort

Frank

Meijers

Evert

. 2019. “Examining Spatial Structure Using Gravity Models.” In The Mathematics of Urban Morphology, edited by D’Acci

Luca

, 471–9. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12381-9_21.

25.

Cairns

Stephen

Tunas

Devisari

. 2017. Future Cities Laboratory: Indicia 01. Singapore ETH Center: Lars Muller Publishers. July.

26.

Calabretto

Sylvie

Pinet

François

Kang

Myoung Ah

Corcho

Oscar

. 2011. “Ontology Alignment in the Urban Domain.” In Ontologies in Urban Development Projects, 55–68. London; New York: Springer. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing.

27.

Caneparo

Luca

Berta

Mauro

Rolfo

Davide

. 2020. “Semantic Analysis and 3D Generation of Buildings and Cities.” International Journal of Design Sciences & Technology 24 (1 (July)): 1–37. ISSN: 1630-7267, accessed September 25, 2020. http://ijdst.europia.org/index.php/ijdst/article/view/25.

28.

Caneparo

Luca

Collo

Mattia

di Giannantonio

Davide

Lombardo

Vincenzo

Montuori

Alfonso

Pensa

Stefano

. 2007. “Generating Urban Morphologies from Ontologies.” Ontologies for urban development 162–77.

29.

Cao

Jianpeng

Hall

Daniel

. 2020. “Ontology-based Product Configuration for Modular Buildings.” In 37th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Japan (Online), October. https://doi.org/10/ghgr85.

30.

Center for Digital Built Britain and University of Cambridge. 2020. National Digital Twin Programme, June. Accessed June 24, 2020. https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme.

31.

Chadzynski

Arkadiusz

Krdzavac

Nenad

Farazi

Feroz

Lim

Mei Qi

Shiying

Grisiute

Ayda

Herthogs

Pieter

von Richthofen

Aurel

Cairns

Stephen

Kraft

Markus

. 2021a.Semantic 3D City Database — An Enabler for a Dynamic Geospatial Knowledge Graph.” Energy and AI 6 (December): 1–13. https://doi.org/10/gmfgm3. ISSN: 2666-5468.

32.

Chadzynski

Arkadiusz

Shiying

Grisiute

Ayda

Farazi

Feroz

Lindberg

Casper

Mosbach

Sebastian

Herthogs

Pieter

Kraft

Markus

. 2021b. Semantic 3D City Agents – an intelligent automation for Dynamic Geospatial Knowledge Graphs. Pre-Print Technical Report 283. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, November. https://como.ceb.cam.ac.uk/preprints/283/.

33.

Chaidron

Christophe

Billen

Roland

Teller

Jacques

. 2007. Investigating a Bottom-up Approach for Extracting Ontologies from Urban Databases. In Ontologies for Urban Development, 61:1–14. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71976-2.

34.

Chaillou

Stanislas

. 2019. AI & Architecture An Experimental Perspective. Medium, February. https://medium.com/built-horizons/ai-architecture-4c1ec34a42b8.

35.

Chaturvedi

Kanishk

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2016. “Integrating Dynamic Data and Sensors with Semantic 3D City Models in the Context of Smart Cities.” ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-2/W1 (October): 31–8. https://doi.org/10/gcc6vg. ISSN: 2194-9050.

36.

Chaturvedi

Kanishk

Smyth

Carl Stephen

Gesquière

Gilles

Kutzner

Tatjana

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2017. “Managing Versions and History Within Semantic 3D City Models for the Next Generation of CityGML.” In Advances in 3D Geoinformation, edited by Abdul-Rahman

Alias

, 191–206. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25691-7_11.

37.

Chaturvedi

Kanishk

Yao

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2019. “Integrated Management and Visualization of Static and Dynamic Properties of Semantic 3D City Models.” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-4/W17 (September): 7–14. https://doi.org/10/gg27ds. ISSN: 2194-9034.

38.

Chen

Wei

Huang

Zhaosong

Feiran

Zhu

Minfeng

Guan

Huihua

Maciejewski

Ross

. 2018. “VAUD: A Visual Analysis Approach for Exploring Spatio-Temporal Urban Data.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24 (9 (September)): 2636–48. https://doi.org/10/gd3mgk. ISSN: 1077-2626, 1941-0506, 2160-9306.

39.

CityGML. 2020, June. Accessed June 23, 2020. http://www.citygml.org.

40.

Collaborative Interactive Visualisation Laboratory (CIVAL). 2020. Singapore Views. https://fcl.ethz.ch/research/collaboration/cival/SingaporeViews.html.

41.

Corry

Edward

Pauwels

Pieter

Shushan

Keane

Marcus

O’Donnell

James

. 2015. “ A Performance Assessment Ontology for the Environmental and Energy Management of Buildings.” Automation in Construction 57 (September): 249–59. https://doi.org/10/f7qzm2. ISSN: 0926-5805.

42.

Coyne

R. D.

Rosenman

M. A.

Radford

A. D.

Balachandran

Gero

J. S.

. 1990. Knowledge Based Design Systems. Boston: Addison Wesley. Accessed September 22, 2020. http://cumincad.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?e5e2.

43.

Cross

Nigel

. 2007. “From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking.” In Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects, edited by Michel

Ralf

, 41–54. Basel: Birkhäuser. Board of International Research in Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_3.

44.

Daum

Borrmann

Kolbe

T. H.

. 2017. “A Spatio-Semantic Query Language for the Integrated Analysis of City Models and Building Information Models.” In Advances in 3D Geoinformation, edited by Abdul-Rahman

Alias

, 79–93. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25691-7_5.

45.

De Klerk

Rui

Beirao

. 2016. “Ontologies and Shape Grammars - A Relational Overview Towards Semantic Design Systems.” In Complexity & Simplicity, edited by Herneoja

Aulikki

Österlund

Toni

Markkanen

Piia

. Vol. 2, 305–14. CUMINCAD: University of Oulu. August. Accessed October 2, 2020. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?ecaade2016_217.

46.

Ding

Linfang

Xiao

Guohui

Calvanese

Diego

Meng

Liqiu

. 2020. “A Framework Uniting Ontology-Based Geodata Integration and Geovisual Analytics.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9 (8 (July)): 474. https://doi.org/10/gg8nzr. ISSN: 2220-9964.

47.

Donkers

Sjors

Ledoux

Hugo

Zhao

Junqiao

Stoter

Jantien

. 2016. “Automatic con- Version of IFC Datasets to Geometrically and Semantically Correct CityGML LOD3 Buildings: Automatic Conversion of IFC Datasets to CityGML LOD3 Buildings.” Transactions in GIS 20 (4 (August)): 547–69. https://doi.org/10/f874jr. ISSN: 13611682.

48.

Eibeck

Andreas

Chadzynski

Arkadiusz

Lim

Mei Qi

Aditya

Kevin

Ong

Laura

Devanand

Aravind

Karmakar

Gourab

, et al. 2020. “A Parallel World Framework for Scenario Analysis in Knowledge Graphs.” Data-Centric Engineering 1: 1. https://doi.org/10/ghgpvz. ISSN: 2632-6736.

49.

Eibeck

Andreas

Lim

Mei Qi

Kraft

Markus

. 2019. “J-Park Simulator: An Ontology- Based Platform for Cross-Domain Scenarios in Process Industry.” Computers & Chemical Engineering 131 (December): 1–15. https://doi.org/10/ghbmvt. ISSN: 00981354.

50.

Engel

Pedro

. 2019. “Controling Design Variations - Designing a Semantic Controler for a Generative System.” In Architecture in the Age of the 4th Industrial Revolution, edited by Sousa

J. P.

Xavier

J. P.

Henriques Castro

. Vol. 2, 369–76. CumInCAD: University of Porto. September. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?id = ecaadesigradi2019_191.

51.

Espinoza-Arias

Paola

Poveda-Villalón

María

García-Castro

Raúl

Corcho

Oscar

. 2019. “Ontological Representation of Smart City Data: From Devices to Cities.” Applied Sciences 9 (1 (January)): 32. https://doi.org/10/gf9csd.

52.

Falquet

Gilles

Métral

Claudine

Teller

Jacques

Tweed

Christopher

. 2011. Ontologies in Urban Development Projects. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. London ; New York: Springer.

53.

Farazi

Feroz

Salamanca

Maurin

Mosbach

Sebastian

Akroyd

Jethro

Eibeck

Andreas

Aditya

Leonardus Kevin

Chadzynski

Arkadiusz

, et al. 2020. “Knowledge Graph Approach to Combustion Chemistry and Interoperability.” ACS Omega 5 (29 (July)): 18342–8. https://doi.org/10/ghtg74. ISSN: 2470-1343.

54.

Fischer

Gerhard

McCall

Raymond

Morch

Anders

. 1990. JANUS: integrating Hypertext with a Knowledge-Based Design Environment. Technical report. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, July.

55.

Fonseca

Frederico

Egenhofer

Max

Davis

Clodoveu

Câmara

Gilberto

. 2002. “Semantic Granularity in Ontology-Driven Geographic Information Systems.” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36 (1 (September)): 121–51. https://doi.org/10/c4kdzg. ISSN: 1573-7470.

56.

Forrester

Jay W

. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

57.

Fuchkina

Ekaterina

Schneider

Sven

Bertel

Sven

Osintseva

Iuliia

. 2018. Design Space Exploration Framework, 10.

58.

Gao

Xinxin

Wencheng

Rong

Yilong

Zhang

Songmao

. 2017. “Ontology-Based Social Media Analysis for Urban Planning.” In 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 1:888–896, July. https://doi.org/10/ghcf8b.

59.

Geertman

Stan

Stillwell

John

. 2004. “Planning Support Systems: An Inventory of Current Practice.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (4 (July)): 291–310. https://doi.org/10/fkgvtd. ISSN: 0198-9715.

60.

Gil

Jorge

. 2020. “City Information Modeling: A Conceptual Framework for Research and Practice in Digital Urban Planning.” Built Environment 46 (4 (December)): 501–27. https://doi.org/10/ghqp88. ISSN: 0263-7960.

61.

Gleye

Paul H

. 2015. “City Planning Versus Urban Planning: Resolving a Profession's Bi- Furcated Heritage.” Journal of Planning Literature 30 (1 (February)): 3–17. https://doi.org/10/gjh7qq. ISSN: 0885-4122, 1552-6593.

62.

Gomes

Jorge

Urbano

Paulo

Montenegro

Nuno C

Duarte

José

. 2012. A computer- aided urban planning tool driven by semantic web ontologies (August): 6.

63.

Grisiute

Ayda

Silvennoinen

Heidi

Shi

Zhongming

Chadzynski

Arkadiusz

Shiying

Lim

Mei Qi

Sielker

Franziska

, et al. 2021. “Creating multi-domain urban planning indicators using a knowledge graph: a district energy use case in Singapore.” In International Conference on Evolving Cities, Southampton, UK, September. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21586.27843.

64.

Grobler

Francois

Aksamija

Ajla

Kim

Hyunjoo

Krishnamurti

Ramesh

Yue

Kui

Hickerson

Casey

. 2008. “Ontologies and Shape Grammars: Communication Between Knowledge-Based and Generative Systems.” In Design Computing and Cognition ‘08, edited by Gero

John S.

Goel

Ashok K.

, 23–40. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10/b898vb.

65.

Gröger

Gerhard

Plümer

Lutz

. 2012. “CityGML – Interoperable Semantic 3D City Models.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 71 (July): 12–33. https://doi.org/10/f35zcd. ISSN: 09242716.

66.

Guarino

Nicola

. 1995. “Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (5-6 (November)): 625–40. https://doi.org/10/c9ttxg. ISSN: 10715819.

67.

Guo

Kun

Yueming

Gao

Hui

Cao

Ruohan

. 2018. “Artificial Intelligence-Based Semantic Internet of Things in a User-Centric Smart City.” Sensors 18 (5 (May)): 1341. https://doi.org/10/gd57z3.

68.

Guyot

Jacques

Falquet

Gilles

Teller

Jacques

. 2010. Incremental development of a shared urban ontology: the Urbamet experience.

69.

Habitat

U. N.

2017. New Urban Agenda: Habitat III: Quito 17–20 October 2016. Nairobi: United Nations.

70.

Hale

Bob

Wright

Crispin

. 1999. “A Companion to the Philosophy of Language.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 309–30. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631213260.1999.00015.x.

71.

Hasler

Stéphanie Aline

. 2019. “De Smart à Responsive, les enjeux de la planification urbaine à l’ère du numérique: les expériences de Genève et Singapour.” Doctoral Thesis, EPFL. 10.5075/epfl-thesis-9038.

72.

Hein

Carola

. 2017a. The Routledge Handbook of Planning History. First. 1 Edition. New York: Routledge. 2017, December. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718996.

73.

Hein

Carola

. 2017b. “The What, Why, and How of Planning History.” In The Routledge Handbook of Planning History,, edited by Hein

Carola

. 1 Edition, 1–10. New York: Routledge. 2017, December. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718996-1.

74.

Helbing

Dirk

Pournaras

Evangelos

. 2015. “Society: Build Digital Democracy.” Nature 527 (7576 (November)): 33–4. https://doi.org/10/gg5k7s. ISSN: 0028-0836, 1476-4687.

75.

Henchley

Norman

. 1978. “Making Sense of Future Studies.” Alternatives 7 (2): 24–8.

76.

Herthogs

Pieter

. 2016. “Enhancing the Adaptable Capacity of Urban Fragments: a methodology to integrate Design for Change in sustainable urban projects.” PhD diss, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, November. 10.13140/RG.2.2.17705.62567.

77.

Hoare

Cathal

Pinheiro

Sergio

Shushan

O’Donnell

James

. 2020. “A Contextual Ontology for Distributed Urban Data Management.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Smart Infrastructure and Construction 0 (December): 1–9. https://doi.org/10/ghqfz7.

78.

Hor

A.-H.

Sohn

Claudio

Jadidi

Afnan

. 2018. “A Semantic Graph Database for BIM-GIS Integrated Information Model For an Intelligent Urban Mobility Web Application.” ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-4 (September): 89–96. https://doi.org/10/ghmprr. ISSN: 2194-9050.

79.

Yingjie

Zhenhua

Jianping

Janowicz

Krzysztof

Zhao

Xizhi

Bailang

. 2015. “A Multistage Collaborative 3D GIS to Support Public Participation.” International Journal of Digital Earth 8 (3 (March)): 212–34. https://doi.org/10/gm84qd. ISSN: 1753-8947, 1753-8955.

80.

Huang

Zhongwen

. 2021. AI in Urban Planning: 3 Ways it will Strengthen how we Plan for the Future, September. Accessed October 18, 2021. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Resources/Ideas-and-Trends/AI-in-Urban-Planning.

81.

Huang

Weiming

Harrie

Lars

. 2019. “Towards Knowledge-Based Geovisualisation Using Semantic Web Technologies: A Knowledge Representation Approach Coupling Ontologies and Rules.” International Journal of Digital Earth 0 (0 (April)): 1–22. https://doi.org/10/ggxkcr. ISSN: 1753-8947.

82.

Iwaniak

Kaczmarek

Łukowicz

Strzelecki

Coetzee

Paluszyński

. 2016. Semantic Metadata for Heterogeneous Spatial Planning Documents. In ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. IV-4-W1, 27–36. Copernicus GmbH, September. https://doi.org/10/gcc632.

83.

Janowicz

Krzysztof

Yingjie

McKenzie

Grant

Gao

Song

Regalia

Blake

Mai

Gengchen

Zhu

Rui

Adams

Benjamin

Taylor

Kerry

. 2016. “Moon Landing or Safari? a Study of Systematic Errors and Their Causes in Geographic Linked Data.” In Geographic Information Science, edited by Miller

Jennifer A.

O'Sullivan

David

Wiegand

Nancy

. Vol. 9927, 275–90. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45738-3_18.

84.

Julin

Arttu

Jaalama

Kaisa

Virtanen

Juho-Pekka

Pouke

Matti

Ylipulli

Johanna

Vaaja

Matti

Hyyppä

Juha

Hyyppä

Hannu

. 2018. “Characterizing 3D City Modeling Projects: Towards a Harmonized Interoperable System.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (2 (February)): 55. https://doi.org/10/gc78v7. ISSN: 2220-9964.

85.

Kaczmarek

Iwona

Iwaniak

Adam

Łukowicz

Jaromar

. 2014. “New Spatial Planning Data Access Methods Through the Implementation of the Inspire Directive.” Real Estate Management and Valuation 22 (1 (March)): 9–21. https://doi.org/10/ghcf7t.

86.

Kamsu-Foguem

Abanda

F. H.

Doumbouya

M. B.

Tchouanguem

J. F.

. 2019. “Graph-based Ontology Reasoning for Formal Verification of BREEAM Rules.” Cognitive Systems Research 55 (June): 14–33. https://doi.org/10/ghcrn7. ISSN: 1389-0417.

87.

Kaňuk

Ján

Gallay

Michal

Hofierka

Jaroslav

. 2015. “Generating Time Series of Virtual 3-D City Models Using a Retrospective Approach.” Landscape and Urban Planning 139 (July): 40–53. https://doi.org/10/f7fks7. ISSN: 01692046.

88.

Karalis

Nikolaos

Mandilaras

Georgios

Koubarakis

Manolis

. 2019. “Extending the YAGO2 Knowledge Graph with Precise Geospatial Knowledge.” In The Semantic Web – ISWC 2019, edited by Ghidini

Chiara

Hartig

Olaf

Maleshkova

Maria

Svátek

Vojtěch

Cruz

Isabel

Hogan

Aidan

Song

Jie

Lefrançois

Maxime

Gandon

Fabien

. Vol. 11779, 181–97. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_12.

89.

Kardinal Jusuf

Steve

. Benjamin Mousseau, Gaelle Godfroid, and Vincent Soh Jin Hui. 2017. Integrated Modeling of CityGML and IFC for City/Neighborhood Development for Urban Microclimates Analysis.” Energy Procedia 122 (September): 145–50. https://doi.org/10/gddfbq. ISSN: 18766102.

90.

Katsumi

Megan

Fox

. 2019. An Ontology-Based Standard for Transportation Planning. In JOWO.

91.

Kaza

Nikhil

Hopkins

Lewis D.

. 2007. “Ontology for Land Development Decisions and Plans.” In Ontologies for Urban Development, edited by Kacprzyk

Janusz

Teller

Jacques

Lee

John R.

Roussey

Catherine

. Vol. 61, 47–59. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71976-2_5.

92.

Keßler

Carsten

Rinner

Claus

Raubal

Martin

. 2005. An argumentation map proto- type to support decision-making in spatial planning.

93.

Komninos

Bratsas

Charalampos

Kakderi

Tsarchopoulos

. 2016. Smart city ontologies: improving the effectiveness of smart city applications. https://doi.org/10/gc6xjd.

94.

Konde

Tauscher

Biljecki

Crawford

. 2018. “Floor Plans In CityGML.” ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-4/W6 (September): 25–32. https://doi.org/10/ggvppg. ISSN: 2194-9050.

95.

König

Reinhard

Bielik

Martin

Dennemark

Martin

Fink

Theresa

Schneider

Sven

Siegmund

Norbert

. 2020a. “Levels of Automation in Urban Design Through Artificial Intelligence: A Framework to Characterize Automation Approaches.” Built Environment 46 (4 (December)): 599–619. https://doi.org/10/ghqp9d. ISSN: 0263-7960.

96.

König

Reinhard

Miao

Yufan

Aichinger

Anna

Knecht

Katja

Konieva

Kateryna

. 2020b. “Integrating Urban Analysis, Generative Design, and Evolutionary Optimization for Solving Urban Design Problems.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47 (6 (July)): 997–1013. https://doi.org/10/ggtbmg. ISSN: 2399-8083, 2399-8091.

97.

Konys

Agnieszka

. 2018. “An Ontology-Based Knowledge Modeling for a Sustainability Assessment Domain.” Sustainability 10 (2 (February)): 300. https://doi.org/10/gc4k5d.

98.

Kumar

Kavisha

Labetski

Anna

Ohori

Ken Arroyo

Ledoux

Hugo

Stoter

Jantien

. 2019. “Harmonising the OGC Standards for the Built Environment: A CityGML Ex- Tension for LandInfra.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8 (6 (June)): 246. https://doi.org/10/ghtg7m.

99.

Kusno

Abidin

. 2020. “Postcolonial Southeast Asia.” In The Routledge Handbook of Plan- Ning History, edited by Hein

Carola

, 230–43. London: Taylor / Francis.

100.

Kutzner

Tatjana

Chaturvedi

Kanishk

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2020. “CityGML 3.0: New Functions Open Up New Applications.” PFG – Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science 88 (1 (February)): 43–61. https://doi.org/10/ggs8b2. ISSN: 2512-2789, 2512-2819.

101.

Lacasta

Nogueras-Iso

Béjar

Muro-Medrano

P. R.

Zarazaga-Soria

F. J.

. 2007. “A Web Ontology Service to Facilitate Interoperability Within a Spatial Data Infrastructure: Applicability to Discovery.” Data & Knowledge Engineering 63 (3 (December)): 947–71. https://doi.org/10/ccnftm. ISSN: 0169023X.

102.

Lai

Sabrina

Zoppi

Corrado

. 2011. “An Ontology of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of City Masterplans.” Future Internet 3 (4 (December)): 362–78. https://doi.org/10/fxmhxk. ISSN: 1999-5903.

103.

Langenhan

Christoph; Haß

. 2011. “Investigating Research Strategies for Accessing Knowledge Stored in Semantic Models.” In Respecting Fragile Places, 403–11. University of Ljubljana: CUMINCAD. September. Accessed October 2, 2020. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/paper/ecaade2011_014.

104.

Laurian

Lucie

Inch

Andy

. 2019. “On Time and Planning: Opening Futures by Cultivating a “Sense of Now”.” Journal of Planning Literature 34 (3 (August)): 267–85. https://doi.org/10/gjh7tv. ISSN: 0885-4122, 1552-6593.

105.

Lee

Pin-Chan

Tzu-Ping

Tian

Ming-Yang

Long

Danbing

. 2019. “An Efficient De- Sign Support System Based on Automatic Rule Checking and Case-Based Reasoning.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 23 (5 (May)): 1952–62. https://doi.org/10/ghcrn4. ISSN: 1976-3808.

106.

Lehnerer

Alex

. 2009. Grand Urban Rules. Rotterdam: nai010 publishers.

107.

Levesque

H. J.

1986. “Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.” Annual Review of Computer Science 1 (1): 255–87. https://doi.org/10/bfm2d7.

108.

Lin

Luo

Feng

Zhu

Haihong

Ying

Shen

Zhao

Zhigang

. 2016. “A two-Level Topo- Logical Model for 3D Features in CityGML.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59 (September): 11–24. https://doi.org/10/ggvr3g. ISSN: 01989715.

109.

Lim

Tauscher

Biljecki

. 2019. “Graph Transformation Rules For IFC-To- CityGML Attribute Conversion.” ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-4/W8 (September): 83–90. https://doi.org/10/ggvr8r. ISSN: 2194-9050.

110.

Lin

Chieh-Jen

. 2015. “Design Criteria Modeling.” In Emerging Experience in Past, Present and Future of Digital Architecture, 479–88. Daegu: CUMINCAD. May.

111.

Lin

Chieh-Jen

Chiu

Mao-Lin

. 2008. “Open Ontology: a Self-Organizing Tool for Knowledge Acquisition in a Case Library.” In 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, 328–334, Chiang Mai: CUMINCAD, April.

112.

Lombardini

Giampiero

. 2016. “Formal Ontologies and Strategic Environmental Assessment. A Case Study: The Municipal Land use Plan of Genoa.” City, Territory and Architecture 3 (1 (June)): 8. https://doi.org/10/ghcf8g. ISSN: 2195-2701.

113.

Lösch

Uta

Dugdale

Julie

Demazeau

Yves

. 2009. “Requirements for Supporting Individual Human Creativity in the Design Domain.” In Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2009, edited by Natkin

Stéphane

Dupire

Jérôme

. Vol. 5709, 210–5. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04052-8_22.

114.

Madrazo

Leandro

Sicilia

Alvaro

Gamboa

Gonzalo

. 2012. “SEMANCO: semantic Tools for Carbon Reduction in Urban Planning.” In 9th European Conference on Product and Process Modeling, Reykjavik, July.

115.

Mai

Gengchen

Janowicz

Krzysztof

Cai

Ling

Zhu

Rui

Regalia

Blake

Yan

Shi

Meilin

Lao

. 2020. “SE-KGE: A Location-Aware Knowledge Graph Embedding Model for Geographic Question Answering and Spatial Semantic Lifting.” Transactions in GIS n/a (n/a (May)): 623–55. https://doi.org/10/ggzgbs. ISSN: 1361-1682.

116.

Marshall

Stephen

. 2012a. “Planning, Design and the Complexity of Cities.” In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design, edited by Portugali

Juval

Meyer

Han

Stolk

Egbert

Tan

Ekim

, 191–205. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24544-2_11.

117.

Marshall

Stephen

Gong

Green

Nick

. 2019. “Urban Compactness: New Geometric Interpretations and Indicators.” In The Mathematics of Urban Morphology, edited by D’Acci

Luca

, 431–56. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12381-9_19.

118.

Marshall

Stephen

. 2012b. “Science, pseudo-Science and Urban Design.” URBAN DESIGN International 17 (4 (November)): 257–71. https://doi.org/10/gc3kck.

119.

Massaro

Emanuele

Athanassiadis

Aristide

Psyllidis

Achilleas

Binder

Claudia R.

. 2020. “Ontology-Based Integration of Urban Sustainability Indicators.” In Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems, edited by Binder

Claudia R.

Massaro

Emanuele

Wyss

Romano

, 332–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

120.

McGlinn

Kris

O'Sullivan

Declan

Debruyne

Christophe

Clinton

Eamonn

Brennan

Rob

. n.d. Geoff: a Linked Data Vocabulary for Describing the Form and Function of Spatial Objects, 12.

121.

Med

Michal

Křemen

Petr

. 2017. “Context-based ontology for urban data integration.” In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, 457–461. iiWAS ‘17, New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, December. https://doi.org/10/ghcf7x.

122.

Métral

Claudine

Cutting-Decelle

Anne-Françoise

Métral

Claudine

Falquet

Gilles

Vonlanthen

Mathieu

Falquet

Gilles

Vonlanthen

Mathieu

. 2011. “Ontologies for Inter- Connecting Urban Models.” In Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, 61–72. London; New York: Springer.

123.

Métral

Falquet

Cutting-Decelle

A. F.

. 2009. Towards Semantically Enriched 3D City Models: An Ontology-Based Approach, 6.

124.

Miltiades

Lazoglou

Angelides

Demos C.

. 2018. “Spatial Planning and Semantics: an Innovative Spatial Decision Support System for Land-Use Planning.” In 11th Inter- national Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Association (ICHGS–2018), “Innovative Geographies: understanding and Connecting our World”, Lavrion, Greece, April.

125.

Montenegro

Nuno C

Duarte

José P

. 2009. Computational Ontology of Urban Design - Towards a City Information Model. In eCAADe 27, 8. Istanbul.

126.

Montenegro

Nuno C

Gomes

Jorge

Urbano

Paulo

Duarte

José P

. 2011. 4CitySemantics: GIS-semantic tool for urban intervention areas. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://core.ac.uk/reader/41792450.

127.

Montenegro

Nuno C

Gomes

Jorge C.

Urbano

Paulo

Duarte

José P.

. 2012. “A Land Use Planning Ontology: LBCS.” Future Internet 4 (1 (January)): 65–82. https://doi.org/10/fxxkpj. ISSN: 1999-5903.

128.

Müller

Pascal

. 2010. “Procedural modeling of buildings.” PhD diss, ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-006397747.

129.

Murgante

Beniamino

Garramone

Vito

. 2013. “Web 3.0 and Knowledge Management: Opportunities for Spatial Planning and Decision Making.” In Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2013, edited by Murgante

Beniamino

Misra

Sanjay

Carlini

Maurizio

Torre

Carmelo M.

Nguyen

Hong-Quang

Taniar

David

Apduhan

Bernady O.

Gervasi

Osvaldo

, 606–21. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10/ghcf6p.

130.

Murgante

Beniamino

Scorza

Francesco

. 2011. “Ontology and Spatial Planning.” In Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2011, edited by Murgante

Beniamino

Gervasi

Osvaldo

Iglesias

Andrés

Taniar

David

Apduhan

Bernady O.

, 255–64. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10/d9fsqv.

131.

Oliveira

Vitor

Pinho

Paulo

. 2010. “Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects.” Journal of Planning Literature 24 (4 (May)): 343–61. https://doi.org/10/fpjjhc. ISSN: 0885-4122, 1552-6593.

132.

Pan

Ming

Sikorski

Janusz

Akroyd

Jethro

Mosbach

Sebastian

Lau

Raymond

Kraft

Markus

. 2016. “Design Technologies for eco-Industrial Parks: From Unit Operations to Processes, Plants and Industrial Networks.” Applied Energy 175 (August): 305–23. https://doi.org/10/f8t8vx. ISSN: 03062619.

133.

Pan

Ming

Sikorski

Janusz

Kastner

Catharine A.

Akroyd

Jethro

Mosbach

Sebastian

Lau

Raymond

Kraft

Markus

. 2015. “Applying Industry 4.0 to the Jurong Island Eco-Industrial Park.” Energy Procedia 75 (August): 1536–41. https://doi.org/10/ghgpvv. ISSN: 18766102.

134.

Parnell

Susan

. 2020. “Africa's Urban Planning Palimpsest.” In The Routledge Handbook of Planning History, edited by Hein

Carola

, 109–19. London: Taylor / Francis.

135.

Pauwels

Pieter

Zhang

Sijie

Lee

Yong-Cheol

. 2017. “Semantic web Technologies in AEC Industry: A Literature Overview.” Automation in Construction 73 (January): 145–65. https://doi.org/10/f9hmxh. ISSN: 0926-5805.

136.

Pimentel

Andy D

. 2017. “Exploring Exploration: A Tutorial Introduction to Embedded Systems Design Space Exploration.” IEEE Design & Test 34 (1 (February)): 77–90. https://doi.org/10/gg8nk8. ISSN: 2168-2356, 2168-2364.

137.

Pittaras

Nikiforos

Papadakis

George

Stamoulis

George

Argyriou

Giorgos

Taniskidou

Efi Karra

Thanos

Emmanouil

Giannakopoulos

George

Tsekouras

Leonidas

Koubarakis

Manolis

. 2019. “GeoSensor: semantifying change and event detection over big data.” In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, 2259–2266, Limassol Cyprus: ACM, April. https://doi.org/10/ggtdjd.

138.

Plume

Jim

John

Mitchell

. 2011. “An Urban Information Framework to support Planning, Decision-Making & Urban Design.” In Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2011, 653–668, Liege: CUMINCAD, July. Accessed October 2, 2020. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/paper/cf2011_p152.

139.

Psyllidis

Achilleas

. 2015. Ontology-Based Data Integration from Heterogeneous Urban Systems: A Knowledge Representation Framework for Smart Cities, 21.

140.

Psyllidis

Achilleas

Bozzon

Alessandro

Bocconi

Stefano

Bolivar

Christiaan Titos

. 2015. “A Platform for Urban Analytics and Semantic Data Integration in City Planning.” In Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures. The Next City - New Technologies and the Future of the Built Environment, edited by Celani

Gabriela

Sperling

David Moreno

Santos Franco

Juarez Moara

. Vol. 527, 21–36. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47386-3_2.

141.

Ronzhin

Folmer

Maria

Brattinga

Beek

Lemmens

Veer

Van’t

. 2019. “Kadaster Knowledge Graph: Beyond the Fifth Star of Open Data.” Information 10 (10 (October)): 310. https://doi.org/10/ggcr5v. ISSN: 2078-2489.

142.

Rowland

Alexandra

Folmer

Erwin

Beek

Wouter

. 2020. “Towards Self-Service GIS—Combining the Best of the Semantic Web and Web GIS.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo- Information 9 (12 (December)): 753. https://doi.org/10/ghtgxv.

143.

Ruikar

Anumba

C. J.

Duke

Carrillo

P. M.

Bouchlaghem

N. M.

. 2007. “Using the Semantic web for Project Information Management. Edited by Edward Finch.” Facilities 25 (13/14 (January)): 507–24. https://doi.org/10/dzvm99. ISSN: 0263-2772.

144.

Ruston McAleer

Susie

Kogut

Pasha

Raes

Lieven

. 2020. DUET: digital Urban European Twins. White Paper. Pilzen, February. https://www.digitalurbantwins.com.

145.

Sabag Muñoz

Oscar

Gladek

Eva

. 2017. One Planet Approaches - Methodology Mapping and Pathways Forward. White Paper. Rotterdam: Metabolic, April.

146.

Santos

Henrique

Dantas

Victor

Furtado

Vasco

Pinheiro

Paulo

McGuin-ness

Deborah L.

. 2017. From Data to City Indicators: a Knowledge Graph for Supporting Automatic Generation of Dashboards. arXiv:1704.01946 [cs] (April). Accessed December 12, 2019. arXiv: 1704.01946 [cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01946.

147.

Scheider

Simon

Meerlo

Rogier

Kasalica

Vedran

Lamprecht

Anna-Lena

. 2020. “Ontology of Core Concept Data Types for Answering geo-Analytical Questions.” Journal of Spatial Information Science 119 (20 (June)): 167–201. https://doi.org/10/gg3h9r. ISSN: 1948-660X.

148.

Schrotter

Gerhard

Hürzeler

Christian

. 2020. “The Digital Twin of the City of Zurich for Urban Planning.” PFG – Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science 88 (1 (February)): 99–112. https://doi.org/10/ggvkr3. ISSN: 2512-2789, 2512-2819.

149.

Schwab

Benedikt

Beil

Christof

Kolbe

Thomas

. 2020. “Spatio-Semantic Road Space Modeling for Vehicle–Pedestrian Simulation to Test Automated Driving Systems.” Sustainability 12 (9 (May)): 3799. https://doi.org/10/gg24cb.

150.

Semantic Web. 2015. Accessed October 25, 2020. https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/.

151.

Seto

Karen Ching-Yee

Solecki

William

Griffith

Corrie

. 2016. “The Road Ahead for Urbanization and Sustainability Research.” In The Routledge Handbook of Urbanization and Global Environmental Change. New York: Routledge. Accessed December 12, 2019. http://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315849256.

152.

Shukla

P. R.

Skea

Calvo Buendia

Masson-Delmotte

Pörtner

H.-O.

Roberts

D. C.

Zhai

, R., et al. 2019. “IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, 1–41. Geneva: IPCC.

153.

Sidewalklabs. 2020. Delve: discover Radically Better Design, October. Accessed November 24, 2020. https://hello.delve.sidewalklabs.com.

154.

Soon

Kean Huat

. 2012. A Conceptual Framework of Representing Semantics for 3D Cadastre in Singapore.

155.

Stadler

Alexandra

Nagel

Claus

König

Gerhard

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2009. “Making Interoperability Persistent: A 3D Geo Database Based on CityGML.” In 3D Geo- Information Sciences, edited by Lee

Jiyeong

Zlatanova

Sisi

, 175–92. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87395-2_11.

156.

Stead

Dominic

. 2021. “Conceptualizing the Policy Tools of Spatial Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 36 (3): 088541222199228. https://doi.org/10/gh83zg. ISSN: 0885-4122, 1552-6593.

157.

Stiny

George

Gips

James

. 1971. Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture.

158.

Stojanovski

Todor

. 2018. “City Information Modeling (CIM) and Urban Design - Morphological Structure, Design Elements and Programming Classes in CIM.” In eCAADe 2018, Lodz, Poland, September.

159.

Swilling

Mark

Hajer

Maarten

Baynes

Tim

Bergesen

Joe

Labbé

Françoise

Musango

Josephine Kaviti

Ramswami

Anu

, et al. 2018. The Weight of Cities: resource Requirements of Future Urbanization. Technical report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Resource Panel (IRP) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Accessed March 22, 2021. https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/weight-cities.

160.

Tardy

Moccozet

Falquet

. 2012. “Semantic Alignment of Documents with 3D City Models.” In Usage, Usability, and Utility of 3D City Models – European COST Action TU0801, edited by Leduc

Moreau

Billen

, 02011. Nantes, France: EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10/ggvr8m.

161.

Tauscher

Helga

Lim

Joie

Stouffs

Rudi

. 2021. “A Modular Graph Transformation Rule set for IFC-to-CityGML Conversion.” Transactions in GIS 25 (1): tgis.12723. https://doi.org/10/ghvhpr. ISSN: 1361-1682, 1467-9671.

162.

Teller

Jacques

Lee

John R.

Roussey

Catherine

Kacprzyk

Janusz

. 2007. Ontologies for Urban Development. Vol. 61. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71976-2.

163.

Tempelmeier

Nicolas

Rietz

Yannick

Lishchuk

Iryna

Kruegel

Tina

Mumm

Olaf

Carlow

Vanessa Miriam

Dietze

Stefan

Demidova

Elena

. 2019. “Data4UrbanMobility: to- wards Holistic Data Analytics for Mobility Applications in Urban Regions.” In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference on - WWW ‘19, 137–145, San Francisco, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10/gg5k7h.

164.

Tomlinson

R. F.

1969. “A Geographic Information System for Regional Planning.” Journal of Geography (Chigaku Zasshi) 78 (1): 45–8. https://doi.org/10/dcb493. ISSN: 0022-135X, 1884-0884.

165.

Townsend

Anthony M

. 2013. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a new Utopia. First edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

166.

Trento

Armando

Fioravanti . 2010. “Ontologies for Cities of the Future: The Quest of Formalizing Interaction Rules of Urban Phenomena.” In Future Cities, 797–804. ETH Zürich: CumInCAD. September. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/_id = ecaade2013/Show?ecaade2010_224.

167.

Trindade

Evelin Priscila

Farias Hinnig

Marcus Phoebe

da Costa

Eduardo Moreira

Marques

Jamile Sabatini

Bastos

Rogério Cid

Yigitcanlar

Tan

. 2017. “Sustainable Development of Smart Cities: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 3 (1 (December)): 1–14. https://doi.org/10/ggfr6n. ISSN: 2199-8531.

168.

United Nations (UN). 2018. Growth Rates of Urban Agglomerations by Size Class 2014 to 2030. New York: Washington D.C. https://population.un.org/wup/default.aspx?aspxerrorpath = /wup/maps/CityGrowth/CityGrowth.aspx.

169.

van Dam

Koen H.

Keirstead

James

. 2010. “Re-use of an Ontology for Modeling Urban Energy Systems.” In Next Generation Infrastructure Systems for Eco-Cities, 1–6. Shenzhen, China: IEEE. November. https://doi.org/10/d2vwj3.

170.

Verweij

Stefan

Trell

Elen-Maarja

. 2019. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Spatial Planning Research and Related Disciplines: A Systematic Literature Review of Applications.” Journal of Planning Literature 34 (3): 300–17. https://doi.org/10/gf4r9g.

171.

von Richthofen

Aurel

. 2018. Urban Elements: Advanced Studies in Urban Design. Beijing: ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-B-000270354.

172.

von Richthofen

Aurel

Knecht

Katja

Miao

Yufan

König

Reinhard

. 2018. “The ‘Urban Elements’ Method for Teaching Parametric Urban Design to Professionals.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 7 (4): 573–87. https://doi.org/10/gfwv6p.

173.

Voros

Joseph

. 2003. “A Generic Foresight Process Framework.” Foresight (los Angeles, Calif ) 5 (3 (June)): 10–21. https://doi.org/10/d2bj4h. ISSN: 1463-6689.

174.

Waddell

Borning

Noth

Ulfarsson

Freier

Becke

. 2003. “Microsimulation of Urban Development and Location Choices: Design and Implementation of UrbanSim.” Networks and Spatial Economics 3 (January): 43–67. https://doi.org/10/fwxms7.

175.

Wagner

Anna

Bonduel

Mathias

Pauwels

Pieter

Rüppel

Uwe

. 2020. “Representing Construction-Related Geometry in a Semantic web Context: A Review of Approaches.” Automation in Construction 115 (July): 103130. https://doi.org/10/ghcrpg. ISSN: 0926-5805.

176.

Wang

Yuefeng

Fan

Hongchao

Zhou

Guoqing

. 2020. “Reconstructing Facade Semantic Models Using Hierarchical Topological Graphs.” Transactions in GIS 24 (4): 1073–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12616. ISSN: 1467-9671.

177.

Wang

Hao

Pan

Yisha

Luo

Xiaochun

. 2019. “Integration of BIM and GIS in Sustainable Built Environment: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis.” Automation in Construction 103 (July): 41–52. https://doi.org/10/ghcrnz. ISSN: 0926-5805.

178.

Wiegand

Nancy

. 2012. “Preserving Detail in a Combined Land Use Ontology.” In Geographic Information Science, edited by Xiao

Ningchuan

Kwan

Mei-Po

Goodchild

Michael F.

Shekhar

Shashi

, 284–97. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10/ghcf8p.

179.

Yao

Zhihang

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2017. Dynamically Extending Spatial Databases to Support CityGML Application Domain Extensions Using Graph Transformations, edited by Kersten

Thomas P.

. Vol. 26, 316–31. Würzburg: DGPFG.

180.

Yao

Sidan

Ling

Xiao

Nueesch

Fiona

Schrotter

Gerhard

Schubiger

Simon

Fang

Zheng

Long

Tian

Zhen

. 2020. “Maintaining Semantic Information Across Generic 3D Model Editing Operations.” Remote Sensing 12 (2 (January)): 335. https://doi.org/10/ghcgjv.

181.

Yao

Zhihang

Nagel

Claus

Kunde

Felix

Hudra

György

Willkomm

Philipp

Donaubauer

Andreas

Adolphi

Thomas

Kolbe

Thomas H.

. 2018. “3DCityDB - a 3D geo- Database Solution for the Management, Analysis, and Visualization of Semantic 3D City Models Based on CityGML.” Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards 3 (1 (December)): 5. https://doi.org/10/ggvppj. ISSN: 2363-7501.

182.

Zhang

Ningyu

Deng

Shumin

Chen

Huajun

Chen

Jiaoyan

Xiaoqian

Zhang

Yiyi

. 2018. “Structured Knowledge Base as Prior Knowledge to Improve Urban Data Analysis.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (7 (July)): 264. https://doi.org/10/gfck4s. ISSN: 2220-9964.

183.

Zhao

Junfeng

Wang

Yasha

. 2015. “Toward domain knowledge model for smart city: the core conceptual model.” In 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 1–5, Guadalajara, Mexico: IEEE, October. https://doi.org/10/ggtdg3.

184.

Zhou

Xiaochi

Eibeck

Andreas

Lim

Mei Qi

Krdzavac

Nenad B.

Kraft

Markus

. 2019. “An Agent Composition Framework for the J-Park Simulator - A Knowledge Graph for the Process Industry.” Computers & Chemical Engineering 130 (November): 1–18. https://doi.org/10/ggtdg4. ISSN: 0098-1354.

Semantic City Planning Systems (SCPS): A Literature Review

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2.1. Semantic Web Technologies (SWT)

2.2. Methods for Design Synthesis

2.3. Digital Urban Planning

3. Methodology

3.1. Defining and Scoping SCPS

3.2. Building a Collection of SCPS Literature

4. Reviewing the state of the art of SCPS

4.1. Representational MP

Projective MP

5.1. Reflecting on the scope of this review

5.2. Discussing gaps in literature and future directions

6. Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References