@dimitar in some parts we share similar interests
especial when it comes to digital design and fabrication
It's over two years I work on a new framework called "Building as a Circular Product" and I think a year is needed we complete the whole lifecycle
So, here can be a good point to start: DfMALab https://github.com/DfMALab
Hi people, i'm looking at boiling the text down to something manageable we can discuss. Does anyone have a specific collaboration tool they think is well suited to collaborating on a small text with big ideas? Please let me know.
@duncan why not on https://wiki.osarch.org ?
Dion and I always have different views
I suggested a forum like buildingSMART forum on Discourse (https://www.discourse.org) but he said it's not well
I suggested some public Trello (https://trello.com) boards, but he never built
Even we can have a Telegram (https://telegram.org) group, but Dion prefers FreeNode (https://webchat.freenode.net) which I think it's good
Wiki page is good, but is good for documentation, not collaboration, or even personal pages for people (however, there're lot of ways people have their own pages in the internet and share their insights
<p>Hi people, i'm looking at boiling the text down to something manageable we can discuss. Does anyone have a specific collaboration tool they think is well suited to collaborating on a small text with big ideas? Please let me know.</p>I would think of a simple google doc
@duncan For real time collaboration I would suggest Etherpad : https://framapad.org/fr/, we could also use note on my nextcloud instance : https://courantlibre.biminsight.ch/s/xTns4cEt4W7Nb8P.
For long term I would suggest to use git. This way we can vote proposed modifications before applying it.
<p>Hi people, i'm looking at boiling the text down to something manageable we can discuss. Does anyone have a specific collaboration tool they think is well suited to collaborating on a small text with big ideas? Please let me know.</p>I think at this point it's best for everyone to throw all the different ideas out there (as we are in a loose forum format), without getting boggled down of making an ideal mission statement, in the ideal tool. A forum seems best suited to pitch in and throw ideas out.
The mission statement for time being be something very loose like:
OSARCH is a platform to showcase, share, and test ideas within architecture & design with open source tools.
<p>Dion and I always have different views</p><p>I suggested a forum like buildingSMART forum on Discourse (<a href="https://www.discourse.org" rel="nofollow">https://www.discourse.org</a>) but he said it's not well </p><p>I suggested some public Trello (<a href="https://trello.com" rel="nofollow">https://trello.com</a>) boards, but he never built</p><p>Even we can have a Telegram (<a href="https://telegram.org" rel="nofollow">https://telegram.org</a>) group, but Dion prefers FreeNode (<a href="https://webchat.freenode.net" rel="nofollow">https://webchat.freenode.net</a>) which I think it's good</p><p>Wiki page is good, but is good for documentation, not collaboration, or even personal pages for people (however, there're lot of ways people have their own pages in the internet and share their insights</p>This is the second iteration of osarch. I tried a discourse setup last August but I did not have the time to manage, post, or promote it much. Thankfully through another set of discussions, @Moult stepped up and claimed ownership of the idea. Is it the ideal set-up? Maybe, maybe not, but what's important is that Dion has invested, time, energy, and money to running the platform. Dion, many thanks for your efforts!!! ?️?️
Would be really interested to continue to hear what open source architecture means to everyone else
@Moult , how do we edit posts that we see we've made errors in?
@dimitar post editing has now been enabled for a period of 4 hours after a post is made. Let me know if it has problems :)
We should note that there is a software space left open by proprietary software vendors: they are effectively required by various regulations to support IFC, but their business models dictate that they prefer proprietary data formats. So there is a real possibility that the best tools for working with IFC could be free software and that the big vendors won't care or won't be interested in doing anything about it.
@moult how can you quote just a part of a comment? Also, it seems like Vanilla doesn't use markdown? Also still not sure how to edit a post, no new buttons have popped up anywhere to my knowledge. Sorry for my ignorance
<p><a class="atMention" data-username="dimitar" data-userid="10" href="https://community.osarch.org/profile/dimitar">@dimitar</a> in some parts we share similar interests</p><p>especial when it comes to digital design and fabrication</p><p>It's over two years I work on a new framework called "Building as a Circular Product" and I think a year is needed we complete the whole lifecycle</p><p>So, here can be a good point to start: DfMALab <a href="https://github.com/DfMALab" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/DfMALab</a></p>
@ReD_CoDE that's really interesting. One of the selling points that Dassault Systemes like to promote for Catia is that it helps manage the full lifecycle of a product (whether that product in an airplane, car, building, industrial product, etc). When I saw them demo what they were talking about, it makes sense - besides design, quantifiable information can be input early on in the model, and via their cloud service, manufacturers can plug in directly. Later in the process, if not BIM data, spec sheets can be embedded directly into the model, and since the model serves as digital twin, FM, uses the model to observe and analyze the product/building. Then, when it't time for decommission, they know exactly how much nuts, bolts, and other parts can be recycled and/or reused.
@Moult could you please share how can we edit posts? I can't do that
@dimitar this is why more and more companies use software like CATIA not only in infrastructure projects, but also in building projects
Dassault Systemes has focused on improving their
Geometric modeling kernel and whole lifecycle (based on Systems Engineering (SE) based on JT = STEP AP242)
Simulation, based on new solvers, based on Modelica (System Dynamics and most importantly is acausal when Matlab (Simulink) is causal)
Knowledge base approach
etc
which today's BIM software don't cover these features
Personally I see a BIG obstacle related to BIM/VDC, it is not based on Systems Engineering (SE), indeed modeling and simulation-based systems engineering (M&SBSE)
I totally agree that whole-part and also part-whole approaches can revolutionize BIM/VDC and there're few companies that work in this way, for instance Google's FM team
@dimitar
@moult how can you quote just a part of a comment?
like this? :) (indirect way ...)
Also, it seems like Vanilla doesn't use markdown?
to me looks like it is working markdown_test
@dimitar and @ReD_CoDE apologies about the editing feature - I thought I had fixed it previously, this isn't the first time - but I just found out that the gamification feature (the ability to like posts and earn points) actually gives you ranks which affect your ability to edit posts. I've changed it to be 1 day editing as soon as you join. You should see a settings icon on the top right of your post if it is within 1 day.
I've also changed the editor to be a bit more obvious in how it works - the other one perhaps was trying to be too clever. This one is a bit simpler, and allows you to edit the quoted post. Hopefully it's better. If it isn't and people want the old one back I can change it back.
Now, to move back on-topic ... :)
@brunopostle said:
We should note that there is a software space left open by proprietary software vendors: they are effectively required by various regulations to support IFC, but their business models dictate that they prefer proprietary data formats. So there is a real possibility that the best tools for working with IFC could be free software and that the big vendors won't care or won't be interested in doing anything about it.
I absolutely agree with this. I genuinely believe that the BlenderBIM Add-on is now the world's most advanced IFC authoring tool. The only competitor I think that comes close is SimpleBIM. No other IFC editor allows partial writing, geometric representation context control, distinguishes between the multiple colour assignment methods, lets you create your own property set template definitions, and now can store annotation too, among many more features. What's missing is people to test it out, teach it to others, and so on.
But it's more than just tools - it's about relationships, transparency, and a culture of wanting to do the right thing in the built environment.
@brunopostle said:
So there is a real possibility that the best tools for working with IFC could be free software and that the big vendors won't care or won't be interested in doing anything about it.
I absolutely agree with this. I genuinely believe that the BlenderBIM Add-on is now the world's most advanced IFC authoring tool.
Agree with both. It's becoming clearer every day, there are examples popping up... And it's interesting to see that free software devs complain much less about the IFC format... If only buildingsmart could realize who their real supporters are :)
@Cyril said:
@duncan For real time collaboration I would suggest Etherpad : https://framapad.org/fr/, we could also use note on my nextcloud instance : https://courantlibre.biminsight.ch/s/xTns4cEt4W7Nb8P.
For long term I would suggest to use git. This way we can vote proposed modifications before applying it.
Thanks @Cyril I will start using that in case anyone wants to see a work in progress. But I want to use something a bit smarter. I'm also looking into buying a hosted Nextcloud instance myself (I don't have the skills to manage it myself) so I'd love to play a bit with NextCloud. Is it possible for you to make a group/project/folder and give me rights to create new documents/files? I'd like to try some ideas for separating the text from a motivation and peoples comments.
... this is why more and more companies use software like CATIA not only in infrastructure projects, but also in building projects
Interesting, @ReD_CoDE where can I read more about that?
Here's my first draft of a text.
Our Mission
We are a platform to showcase, share, test and develop FOSS tools and workflows for the built environment.
Our Values
Bringing people together
We're creating a place where everyone involved in a buildings conception and life can meet, inspire and collaborate to develop empowering digital tools.
We support people in creating their own tools and services, for an industry without compromise their private data.
We love technology. Our primary focus is tools for real people to use in real life workflows - from basic conceptual design tools for non-professionals to high tech digital models for design analysis and documentation.
Open development
We reject proprietary file formats and processes. We support open collaboration between all software platforms including interfacing with proprietary platforms to liberate users data.
We support tools and processes designed to put the users the projects first. We respect the creators ownership of their data and privacy. We advocate open formats for project longevity and transparency.
Our vision is for cooperation between software systems each of which contribute with what they do best unhindered by commercial barriers. Central to that vision is open file formats and open source / libre software moving data between software platforms without loss of fidelity.
Knowledge
We share our knowledge about opening up the AEC space to more democratic tools and processes.
We contribute to documenting relevant software & processes.
We support people making the best choices with the best information and tools that respect their rights and freedoms.
I read all comments through and tried to make sure they are represented in this text. But there were a few exceptions I'll outline.
I don't think we should include comments on specific domains like architecture/engineering. That's a whole discussion for itself and I suggest we stay discipline agnostic in this text.
I also haven't included anything about environmental & housing-democratic issues. I just don't think they are part of this text. I think this should be about the tools and processes and not the uses. The uses come into play when we start to describe some workflows.
I also see and am motivated by the potential for democratizing design itself, but again I don't think this is for everyone so it's not in this text. If the text is not ambitious enough then we should definitely talk about those issue - but even if we who are here now agree we also want anyone who supports more FOSS in AEC to be able to get on board. AEC is not an overwhelmingly progressive bunch of people.
I've also avoided the issue of open-access project work like what OpeningDesign is doing, again I think what we are doing is making tools that support many applications both open and closed.
So those are some of my thoughts as I wrote this.
Great work @duncan, this is a very good first draft. I have two comments:
I would like to see more emphasized the concept of "transparency" in the text. Especially for engineering or any kind of workflows where calculations are involved (thus maybe less so in architectural design) open-source and "no black-box" philosophy is something that has a special meaning. Perhaps in this context a reference to "engineering" could be appropriate even though I agree with you to not refer to specific domains.
I feel this phrase is not very clear and can be misunderstood.
We support people in creating their own tools and services, for an industry without compromise their private data.
Perhaps substituting "their own tools and services" with "open tools for their services"? Not sure, maybe it is not clear even to me what is the meaning.
Sure, sounds good. Let's get some more reactions before I move forward. If the structure works for everyone then I can make small adjustments and can add it to the wiki. I just think the structure should be clear before throwing it at a wiki where it risks exploding with everyones favorite angle in long text form.
@duncan I saw this _"Interesting, @ReD_CoDE where can I read more about that?"_ last night, will answer this another time when the discussions about mission statement ended
Agree that transparency should be highlighted more.
We are a platform to showcase, share, test and develop FOSS tools and workflows for the built environment.
I personally feel that that sentence sounds like are are more software developers and techies building and trying out tools. I would like to emphasize that the uses come first. The tools to achieve it are just... tools. Perhaps this is just personal bias, but I prefer my previously written summary statement below. The three bolded words covered the main aspects in my view: tools (foss / small aspect), workflow (transparency / medium aspect), and ethics (the bigger picture of the industry).
The Open-Source Architecture Community brings together like-minded users and developers who share a common goal: that the built environment can be designed, constructed, operated, and recycled with free software, increased transparency, and a more ethical approach.
I understand the argument about keeping ethics out of it ... but I personally can't seem to do that, which is kind of why some FOSS developers talk about free software and some talk about open source ... similar, but different.
Well, transparency is also about ethics so I definitely agree to include it in the mission statement. I believe the statement written by Dion indeed renders better the idea of this group that I have in my mind, as well. I think it is more appropriate for the Mission.
But I also feel that what Duncan has written is a valid and pragmatic attempt to describe what we do, essentially the roadmap to achieve our Mission. Perhaps the collaboration aspect between the members is something that should be there and the workflows should be emphasized more in the sentence.
What if we write something along these lines?
The Open-Source Architecture Community brings together like-minded users and developers who share a common goal: that the built environment can be designed, constructed, operated, and recycled with free software, increased transparency, and a more ethical approach.
We believe this can be achieved by sharing, testing and developing FOSS and by establishing collaboration workflows based on open standards and open formats with a user-centric philosophy
@Moult said:
I understand the argument about keeping ethics out of it ... but I personally can't seem to do that, which is kind of why some FOSS developers talk about free software and some talk about open source ... similar, but different.
Here I agree with you. I'm more talking about ethical considerations in the built environment rather than software choices. I'll take another look.
Login or Register to reply.