The role of standard information models in road asset management

  • Daniela L. Nastasie
  • Andy Koronios


Business activities rely on people’s understanding and interpretation of information. Meaning (semantics) is incorporated in the way information is defined and structured. From a semantics point of view information models range from low level semantics, such as taxonomies and data dictionaries, to high level semantics, such as formal ontologies. The low level semantics information models help humans add meaning to information in a structured way, while the high level semantics information models are essential for computed aided activities and automation of processes. This paper discusses standard information models of relevance to the Road Asset Management sector based on topics discussed on the IPWEA Asset Mates Forum and interviews with practitioners in Australian Government agencies. Current taxonomies, guidelines and open information standards with potential use for Road Asset Management were analysed. The findings suggest that information models used in the Road Asset Management industry are mainly at the low end of the semantics scale and they vary in consistency across the industry. At this stage there are no XML based industry standards specifically designed for Road Asset Management. It is recommended that Road Asset Management sector should consider designing XML based information standard with terms and concepts specific to this industry. Existing XML standards from other sectors could be used as examples or adapted to this particular industry needs for overlapping areas such as finance or business reporting.


Road Network Information Model Road Transport Industry Level Asset Management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Australian Government-Productivity Commission (2008) Assessing Local Government Revenue Raising Capacity-Research Report: Canberra.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) (2009) 2009-2010 Budget Submission: Securing Australia’s Economic and Social Future: Canberra.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns, P., Roorda, J. & Hope, D. (2001) A Wealth of Opportunities: A Report on the Potential from Infrastructure Asset Management in South Australian Local Government, Contents and Glossary. Local Government Infrastructure Management Group.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daconta, M.C., Obrst, L.J. & Smith, K.T. (2003) The Semantic Web: a guide to the future of XML, Web services, and knowledge management. 1st ed. Indianapolis, Ind. : Wiley Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Obrst, L. (2003) Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems in Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management. New Orleans, LA, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hepp, M. & de Bruijn, J. (2007) GenTax: A Generic Methodology for Deriving OWL and RDF-S Ontologies from Hierarchical Classifications, Thesauri, and Inconsistent Taxonomies, in The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. p. 129-144.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hepp, M. (2006) Products and Services Ontologies: A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Industrial Categorization Standards. International Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems (IJSWIS) 2, 72-99Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nastasie, D.L., Koronios, A. & Sandhu, K. (2008) Factors Influencing the Diffusion of Ontologies in Road Asset Management-A Preliminary Conceptual Model in Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Engineering Asset Management and Intelligent Maintenance Systems (WCEAM-IMS). Beijing, China: Springer-Verlag London Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bloomberg, J. & Schmelzer, R. (2006) Service Orient or Be Doomed: How Service Orientation Will Change Your Business. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mihai, F., Binning, N. & Dowling, L. (2000) Road Network Asset Management as a Business Process, in REAAA Conference: 4-9 September, Japan.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    INGENIUM & IPWEA (2006) International Infrastructure Management Manual. 3rd edition ed. Thames, New Zealand: Association of Local Government Engineering NZ Inc (INGENIUM).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Institute of Asset Management (IAM) (2004) PAS 55-1 Asset Management Part 1: specification for the optimized management of physical infrastructure assets. British Standards Institution (BIS): London, UK.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Institute of Asset Management (IAM) (2004) PAS 55-2 Asset Management Part 2: guidelines for the application of PAS 55-1. British Standards Institution (BIS): London, UK.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz, M.L. & Shapiro, C., (1985) Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3): p. 424-440.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koronios, A., Nastasie, D., Chanana, V. & Haider, A. (2007) Integration Through Standards – an Overview of International Standards for Engineering Asset Management, in Second World Congress on Engineering Asset Management, 11-14 June 2007: Harrogate, United Kingdom.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela L. Nastasie
    • 1
  • Andy Koronios
    • 1
  1. 1.Cooperative Research Centre for Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM) - Systems Integration and ITUniversity of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia

Personalised recommendations