This paper examines knowledge implications of digitally modeling existing buildings through a comparative analysis of modeling practices in Revit and Rhino. The paper introduces the concept of Manual Schematic Modeling (MSM), an approach distinct from conventional highly-detailed, semantically-enriched parametric modeling. Through an MSM case study, software-specific decisions are shown to uniquely inform architectural knowledge production. Results suggest that the use of multiple epistemological frameworks, i. e., digital modeling software platforms, can inform architectural knowledge production even if these frameworks appear to be mutually incommensurable. This work challenges the presumed value of a single, comprehensive digital model and argues for the value of diverse modeling approaches for existing buildings.
BlochT. Connecting research on semantic enrichment of BIM: review of approaches, methods and possible applications. ITcon2022; 27: 416–440.
2.
SimeoneDCursiSAciernoM. BIM semantic-enrichment for built heritage representation. Autom ConStruct2019; 97: 122–137.
3.
ChristensonM. An emergent ontology for digitally modeling existing buildings: examining Kyoto’s Nishiki market. Archnet-IJAR2025; 19(3): 527–542.
4.
DawsonIReillyP. Towards embodied paradata: a diffractive art/archaeology approach. In: HuvilaIAnderssonLSköldO (eds). Perspectives on Paradata: Research and Practice of Documenting Process Knowledge. Springer, 2024, pp. 105–131.
5.
AcostaESpettuFFiorilloF. A procedure to import a complex geometry model of a heritage building into BIM for advanced architectural representations. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2022; XLVI(2/W1): 9–16.
6.
RadanovicMKhoshelhamKFraserC. Geometric accuracy and semantic richness in heritage BIM: a review. Digital Appl Archaeol Cult Heritage2020; 19: e00166.
7.
OreniDKarimiGBarazzettiL. Applying BIM to built heritage with complex shapes: the ice house of Filarete’s Ospedale Maggiore in Milan, Italy. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2017; XLII(2/W5): 553–560.
8.
TommasiCAchilleCFassiF. From point cloud to BIM: a modelling challenge in the cultural heritage field. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2016; XLI/B5: 429–436.
9.
KoszewskiK. Visual representations in digital 3D modeling/simulation for architectural heritage. In: NieblingFMünsterSMessemerH (eds). Research and Education in Urban History in the Age of Digital Libraries. Springer, 2019, pp. 87–105.
10.
PauwelsPDi MascioD. Interpreting metadata and ontologies of virtual heritage artefacts. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era2014; 3(3): 531–555.
11.
Di MascioDPauwelsPDe MeyerR. Improving the knowledge and management of the historical built environment with BIM and ontologies: the case study of the book tower. In: DawoodNKassemM (eds). Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality. Teesside University, 2013, pp. 427–436.
12.
AttenniMBianchiniCGriffoM, et al.HBIM meta-modelling: 50 (and more) shades of grey. ISPRS Int J GeoInf2022; 11(9): 468.
13.
SchillingA. Architecture and modelbuilding: concepts, methods, materials. Birkhäuser, 2018.
14.
GouveaJPassmoreC. ‘Models of’ versus ‘models for’: toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Sci Educ2017; 26: 49–63.
15.
Di MascioDPalkaP. From the 3D survey ‘ad Oggetto’ to the technological representation of the architecture: the case study of Caporciano. In: 29th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. eCAADe/University of Ljubljana Faculty of Architecture, 2011, pp. 829–836.
16.
LatourBLoweA. The migration of the aura, or how to explore the original through its facsimiles. In: BartschererTCooverR (eds). Switching codes: Thinking through digital technology in the humanities and the arts. University of Chicago Press, 2011, pp. 275–297.
17.
PiotrowskiA. On the practices of representing and knowing architecture. In: PiotrowskiARobinsonJW (eds). The discipline of architecture. University of Minnesota Press, 2001, pp. 40–60.
18.
SD. Counterpreservation: architectural decay in Berlin since 1989. Cornell University Press, 2016.
19.
MoyanoJCarrenoENieto-JuliánJE, et al.Systematic approach to generate Historical Building Information Modelling (HBIM) in architectural restoration project. Autom ConStruct2022; 143: 104551.
20.
RolfsenCNLassenAKLeinSM, et al.The use of HBIM and scanning in cultural heritage projects. In: HjelsethHSujanSFSchererRJ (eds). ECPPM 2022 – eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction 2022. CRC Press, 2023, pp. 285–292.
21.
ParrinelloSDell’AmicoA. From survey to parametric models: HBIM systems for enrichment of cultural heritage management. In: BolognesiCVillaD (eds). From building information modelling to mixed reality. Springer, 2021, pp. 89–107.
22.
MegahedNA. Towards a theoretical framework for HBIM approach in historic preservation and management. Archnet-IJAR2015; 9(3): 130–147.
23.
DoreCMurphyM. Integration of historic building information modeling (HBIM) and 3D GIS for recording and managing cultural heritage sites. 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM): Virtual Systems in the Information Society. IEEE, 2012, pp. 369–376.
24.
ChristensonM. Testing the relevance of parameterization to architectural epistemology. Archit Sci Rev2009; 52(2): 135–141.
25.
PiotrowskiA. Architecture of thought. University of Minnesota Press, 2011.
26.
ChristensonM. Kinds of designing and their functions in analyzing. Int J Technol Des Educ2017; 27: 611–626.
27.
PerryS. Crafting knowledge with (digital) visual media in archaeology. In: ChapmanRWylieA (eds). Material evidence: Learning from archaeological practice. Routledge, 2014, pp. 209–230.
28.
MasintonAJagoJ. Mapping the unknown: using incomplete evidence to craft digital three-dimensional models of St Stephen’s. British Art Studies. 2020; 16: 1–35. doi:10.17658/issn.2058-5462/issue-16/amasinton.
29.
LinC-J. Architectural knowledge modeling: ontology-based modeling of architectural topology with the assistance of an architectural case library. Comput Aided Des Appl2015; 12(4): 497–506.
30.
BellM. Experimental archaeology at the crossroads: a contribution to interpretation or evidence of ‘xeroxing. In: ChapmanRWylieA (eds). Material evidence: Learning from archaeological practice. Routledge, 2014, pp. 62–78.
31.
WylieA. How archaeological evidence bites back: strategies for putting old data to work in new ways. Sci Technol Hum Val2017; 42(2): 203–225.
32.
HuvilaI. The subtle difference between knowledge and 3D knowledge. Hamburger Journal für Kulturanthropologie2017; 7: 99–111.
GruberTR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis1993; 5(2): 199–220.
35.
PauwelsPZhangSLeeY-C. Semantic web technologies in AEC industry: a literature overview. Autom ConStruct2017; 73: 145–165.
36.
AksamijaAIordanovaI. Multimodal representations of architectural design knowledge: interaction between visual and ontological models. In: TidafiTDortaT (eds). Proceedings of the 13th International CAAD Futures Conference. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2009, pp. 642–655.
37.
ZhangLIssaRRA. Ontology-based partial building information model extraction. J Comput Civ Eng2013; 27(6): 576–584.
38.
SerrianoP. Form follows software. In: KlingerKR (ed). Proceedings ACADIA 22. Ball State University, 2003, pp. 185–205.
39.
KensekK. Visual programming for building information modeling: energy and shading analysis case studies. J Green Build2015; 10(4): 28–43.
40.
AdamiABrunoNRosignoliO, et al.HBIM for planned conservation: a new approach to information management. In: Proceedings, International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies (CHNT 23). Stadtarchäologie, 2018.
41.
EastmanCTeicholzPSacksR, et al.BIM handbook: a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
42.
LaiserinJ. Foreword. In: EastmanCTeicholzPSacksR, et al. (eds). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
43.
LombardiMRizziD. Semantic modelling and HBIM: a new multidisciplinary workflow for archaeological heritage. Digital Appl Archaeol Cult Heritage2024; 32: e00322.
44.
FassiF. Reality-based HBIM for the management of monumental architectonic heritage. In: ChoiYGShimH (eds). Proceedings, The 1st International Symposium on Digital Heritage: Convergence of Digital Humanities. Cultural Heritage Administration, 2020, pp. 76–88.
45.
VisintiniDMarconEPantòG, et al.Advanced 3D modeling versus building information modeling: the case study of Palazzo Ettoreo in Sacile (Italy). Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2019; XLII(2/W11): 1137–1143.
46.
YangXLuY-CMurtiyosoA, et al.HBIM modeling from the surface mesh and its extended capability of knowledge representation. ISPRS Int J GeoInf2019; 8(7): 301.
47.
GarfellaJTMáñezMJMartínezJA. Comparative study of graphic representation methods on architectural heritage. In: BrusaporciS (ed). Handbook of research on emerging digital tools for architectural surveying, modeling, and representation. IGI Global, 2015, pp. 182–209.
48.
BrusaporciSMaiezzaPTataA. A framework for architectural heritage HBIM semantization and development. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci2018; XLII(2): 179–184.
49.
SchumacherP. Parametric diagrammes. In: GarciaM (ed). The diagrams of architecture. Wiley, 2010, pp. 260–269.
50.
ChristensonM. On dependencies between architecture and media: considering the remote work. ENQ (Enquiry)2008; 5(1): 6–15.
51.
JohnsonDS. Testing geometric authenticity: standards, methods, and criteria for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of archaeometric computer reconstructions. Vis Resour2009; 25(4): 333–344.
52.
HerdegK. Formal structure in Islamic architecture of Iran and Turkistan. Rizzoli, 1990.
53.
CroweNAHurttSW. Visual notes and the acquisition of architectural knowledge. J Architect Educ1986; 39(3): 6–16.
54.
GravesM. The necessity for drawing: tangible speculation. Archit Des1977; 47(6): 384–394.
55.
SuárezM. An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philos Sci2004; 71(5): 767–779.
56.
HodderI. The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings. In: HodderI (ed). The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 1–10.
Bentkowska-KafelA. Processual scholia: the importance of paradata in heritage visualization. In: Bentkowska-KafelADenardHBakerD (eds). Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage. Routledge, 2016, pp. 245–259.
ChristensonM. Parametric analysis as a tool for hypothesis generation: a case study of the Federal Archive Buildingin New York City. Infrastructure2025; 10(4): 71.
HerdegKEckstutSBellHK, et al.Working paper 1: the New York Federal Archive Building: a proposal for a mixed re-use. The Center (distributed by J Rietman), 1976.
63.
PauwelsPBodRDi MascioD, et al.Integrating building information modelling and semantic web technologies for the management of built heritage information. Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), vol. 1. IEEE, 2013, pp. 481–488.
64.
YoriRKimMKirbyL. Mastering autodesk Revit 2020. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
65.
YangXGrussenmeyerPKoehlM, et al.Review of built heritage modelling: integration of HBIM and other information techniques. J Cult Herit2020; 46: 350.
66.
WoodD. The power of maps. Guilford Press, 1992.
67.
WintherRG. James and Dewey on abstraction. Pluralist2014; 9(2): 1–28.
68.
UrsiniAGrazziniAMatroneF, et al.From scan-to-BIM to a structural finite elements model of built heritage for dynamic simulation. Autom ConStruct2022; 142: 104518.
69.
AngjeliuGCoronelliDCardaniG. Development of the simulation model for digital twin applications in historical masonry buildings: the integration between numerical and experimental reality. Comput Struct2020; 238: 106282.
70.
XueFWuLLuW. Semantic enrichment of building and city information models: a ten-year review. Adv Eng Inform2021; 47: 101245.
71.
TangPHuberDAkinciB, et al.Automatic reconstruction of as-built building information models from laser-scanned point clouds: a review of related techniques. Autom ConStruct2010; 19(7): 829–843.
