prEN ISO 23143-2

• Abstract:

  The scope of this project is to provide guidelines for information exchange between BIM and GIS. As part of a series of proposed international standards for BIM-GIS information exchange, Part 02: Facilitating data exchange through metadata will aim to solve metadata issues to support bidirectional GIS/BIM information exchange and suggest technical requirements based on use case scenarios. Metadata give great opportunities to find, evaluate and manage relevant information for the bidirectional information exchange. To ensure the interoperability between GIS and BIM information models, it is critical for one domain experts to understand the metadata generated from the other domain and vice versa. The work will review existing methodologies and research with regard to bidirectional GIS/BIM information exchange, especially in terms of metadata and item registration. It will provide a use case scenario to give a certain context of bidirectional exchange of metadata. The use case will also provide the context within which the interaction that needs to be taken place between GIS and BIM model experts. With the use of the use case scenario, the process of properly generating metadata for each domain to ensure the bidirectional exchange can be identified. It will then list the technical requirements to support the process and provide a guideline to follow.

• Status: Not Published
• Publication Date: 22-Feb-2028
• ICS: 35.240.70 - IT applications in science
• Technical Committee: CEN/TC 442 - Building Information Modelling (BIM)
• Drafting Committee: CEN/TC 442 - Building Information Modelling (BIM)
• Current Stage: 4020 - Submission to enquiry - Enquiry
• Start Date: 30-Jul-2026
• Due Date: 18-Dec-2025
• Completion Date: 30-Jul-2026
• Ref Project: oSIST prEN ISO 23143-2:2026 - Information exchange between BIM and GIS - Part 2: Facilitating data exchange through metadata (ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026)

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-oktober-2026
Izmenjava informacij med BIM in GIS - 2. del: Omogočanje izmenjave podatkov z
metapodatki (ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026)
Information exchange between BIM and GIS - Part 2: Facilitating data exchange through
metadata (ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026)
Informationsaustausch zwischen BIM und GIS - Teil 2: Erleichterung des
Datenaustauschs durch Metadaten (ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: prEN ISO 23143-2
ICS:
35.240.67 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in building
gradbeništvu and construction industry
35.240.70 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in science
znanosti
91.010.01 Gradbeništvo na splošno Construction industry in
general
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

DRAFT
International
Standard
ISO/DIS 23143-2
ISO/TC 59/SC 13
Information exchange between BIM
Secretariat: SN
and GIS —
Voting begins on:
Part 2: 2026-07-30
Facilitating data exchange through
Voting terminates on:
2026-10-22
metadata
ICS: 35.240.70; 35.240.67
THIS DOCUMENT IS A DRAFT CIRCULATED
FOR COMMENTS AND APPROVAL. IT
IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
AND MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO AS AN
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD UNTIL
PUBLISHED AS SUCH.
This document has not been edited by the ISO Central Secretariat.
IN ADDITION TO THEIR EVALUATION AS
BEING ACCEPTABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL,
TECHNOLOGICAL, COMMERCIAL AND
USER PURPOSES, DRAFT INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS MAY ON OCCASION HAVE TO
ISO/CEN PARALLEL PROCESSING
BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR
POTENTIAL TO BECOME STANDARDS TO
WHICH REFERENCE MAY BE MADE IN
NATIONAL REGULATIONS.
RECIPIENTS OF THIS DRAFT ARE INVITED
TO SUBMIT, WITH THEIR COMMENTS,
NOTIFICATION OF ANY RELEVANT PATENT
RIGHTS OF WHICH THEY ARE AWARE AND TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
Reference number
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
DRAFT
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
International
Standard
ISO/DIS 23143-2
ISO/TC 59/SC 13
Information exchange between BIM
Secretariat: SN
and GIS —
Voting begins on:
Part 2:
Facilitating data exchange through
Voting terminates on:
metadata
ICS: 35.240.70; 35.240.67
THIS DOCUMENT IS A DRAFT CIRCULATED
FOR COMMENTS AND APPROVAL. IT
IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
AND MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO AS AN
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD UNTIL
PUBLISHED AS SUCH.
This document has not been edited by the ISO Central Secretariat.
IN ADDITION TO THEIR EVALUATION AS
BEING ACCEPTABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL,
© ISO 2026
TECHNOLOGICAL, COMMERCIAL AND
USER PURPOSES, DRAFT INTERNATIONAL
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
STANDARDS MAY ON OCCASION HAVE TO
ISO/CEN PARALLEL PROCESSING
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
POTENTIAL TO BECOME STANDARDS TO
WHICH REFERENCE MAY BE MADE IN
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
NATIONAL REGULATIONS.
ISO copyright office
RECIPIENTS OF THIS DRAFT ARE INVITED
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
TO SUBMIT, WITH THEIR COMMENTS,
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
NOTIFICATION OF ANY RELEVANT PATENT
Phone: [phone]
RIGHTS OF WHICH THEY ARE AWARE AND TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland Reference number
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
ii
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Abbreviations . 4
5 Metadata for BIM-to-GIS and GIS-to-BIM . 4
5.1 Context for facilitating data exchange through metadata .4
5.2 Cross mapping of metadata elements in BIM and GIS .6
5.2.1 Context for cross mapping .6
5.2.2 Cross mapping consideration between IDM data schema and GIS metadata
schema .7
5.2.3 Types of relationship .9
5.2.4 Cross mapping result .9
5.3 Contextual foundation for GIS-BIM interoperability .9
5.4 Metadata for GIS-to-BIM .10
5.4.1 General .10
5.4.2 BIM metadata for GIS-to-BIM .10
5.5 Metadata for BIM-to-GIS .14
5.5.1 General .14
5.5.2 GIS metadata for BIM-to-GIS . 15
6 Data exchange guideline between BIM and GIS through metadata . 19
6.1 GIS-to-BIM data exchange .19
6.2 BIM-to-GIS data exchange . 20
Annex A (informative) Relationship between BIM–GIS metadata mapping and registry .21
Annex B (informative) Application schema correspondence for use case of BIM and GIS data
exchange .22
Annex C (informative) Cross mapping result between BIM and GIS metadata elements .24
Annex D (informative) CodeList of MD_ReferenceSystemTypeCode .78
Bibliography .81

iii
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee
has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations,
governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely
with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the different types
of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of any patent
rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or on the ISO list of
patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity assessment,
as well as information about ISO's adherence to the World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 59 Buildings and civil engineering works,
Subcommittee SC 13 Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering
works, including building information modelling (BIM).
A list of all parts in the ISO 23143 series can be found on the ISO website.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found atwww.iso.org/members.html.

iv
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
Introduction
This document is the second part of a four-part international standard titled Information exchange between
BIM and GIS. It provides a framework for metadata-based interoperability to support structured and
semantically consistent data exchange between Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS).
This part specifically facilitates data exchange by establishing semantic cross mappings between the IDM
[1] [2]
Data Schema defined in ISO 29481-3:2022 and the GIS Metadata Schema defined in ISO 19115-1:2014 . It
focuses on enabling metadata-driven requests and responses between the two domains, leveraging existing
metadata structures without introducing new schemas.
The objective of this document is to allow both BIM and GIS systems to formulate, interpret, and respond to
metadata-based queries in a harmonized manner. This includes:
[1]
1) Identifying and aligning corresponding metadata elements between BIM (ISO 29481-3:2022 ) and GIS
[2]
(ISO 19115-1:2014 ), and classify the types of cross-mapping relationships (e.g., 1:1, 1:N, N:1) based on
semantic alignment and information granularity;
2) Supporting semantic interoperability and transformation using a metadata registry according to the
ISO/IEC 11179 series, enabling consistent interpretation and reuse of metadata across domains;
3) Enabling metadata-driven information requests structured around the Level of Information Need
(LoIN), ensuring that exchanged data meets the specific purpose, scope, and granularity required by
the user.
This document does not define new metadata elements or schemas but provides a structure based on existing
standards. The mapping results are provided in Annex C, enabling standardized metadata alignment and
registry-based interpretation.

v
DRAFT International Standard ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
Information exchange between BIM and GIS —
Part 2:
Facilitating data exchange through metadata
1 Scope
This document provides guidelines for the data exchange between BIM and GIS through metadata. This
document explains the role that metadata plays in facilitating data exchange within the framework of the
standards referenced in ISO/DIS 23143-1, Clause 6.3 (Metadata resources).
This document offers a perspective on leveraging metadata to ensure interoperability between BIM and
GIS. It builds on the core principles established in ISO/DIS 23143-1 by presenting how metadata supports
communication between the two domains, thereby facilitating seamless data exchange
This document defines a framework for facilitating data exchange between Building Information
Modelling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) through metadata-driven interoperability.
It specifies methods for identifying and cross-mapping metadata elements in the GIS Metadata Schema
[2] [1]
(ISO 19115-1:2014 ), and for deriving BIM-side metadata from IDM Data Schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 )
to support semantic alignment and structured transformation between the two domains. ISO 29481-3:2022
[1]
is used as a source to derive BIM-side metadata candidates for cross-mapping and is not treated as a
metadata schema.
The scope of this part includes:
1) Establishing metadata-based cross-mapping rules to support the semantic translation of information
between BIM and GIS, including the use of BIM-side metadata candidates (derived from ISO 29481-3:2022
[1] [2]
) and GIS metadata elements (ISO 19115-1:2014 );
2) Supporting bidirectional information requests and responses, where each domain (BIM or GIS) can serve
as either information provider or consumer.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/DIS 23143-1 and the following
apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— IEC Electropedia: available at http:// www .electropedia .org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http:// www .iso .org/ obp
3.1
class
〈UML〉 classifier of a set of objects
[3]
[SOURCE: ISO 19103:2024 , 3.14]

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
3.2
information delivery manual
IDM
documentation which captures the business process and gives detailed specifications of the information
that a user fulfilling a particular role would need to provide at a particular point within a project
[4]
[SOURCE: ISO 29481-1:2016 , 3.10]
3.3
information unit
individual information item, such as a window identifier or a room depth
[4]
[SOURCE: ISO 29481-1:2016 , 3.12]
3.4
information model
set of structured and unstructured information containers
[5]
[SOURCE: ISO 19650-1:2018 , 3.3.8]
3.5
level of information need
LoIN
framework which defines the extent and granularity of information
Note 1 to entry: One purpose of defining the level of information need is to prevent delivery of too much information.
[5]
[SOURCE: ISO 19650-1:2018 , 3.3.16]
3.6
metadata
information about a resource
[2]
[SOURCE: ISO 19115-1:2014 , 4.10]
3.7
metadata element
discrete unit of metadata (3.6)
Note 1 to entry: Metadata elements are unique within a metadata class.
Note 2 to entry: Equivalent to an attribute and/or an association in UML terminology.
Note 3 to entry: Class attributes and relationships are referred to collectively as metadata elements.
[2]
[SOURCE: ISO 19115-1:2014 , 4.11]
3.8
metadata element set
small and fundamental group of data elements or data element concepts through which resources can be
described and catalogued in a domain
EXAMPLE DC (Dublin Core), MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloguing), MODS (Metadata Object Description
Schema), etc.
[6]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 , 3.9]
3.9
metadata entity
set of metadata (3.6) elements describing the same aspect of data
Note 1 to entry: Can contain one or more metadata entities.
Note 2 to entry: Equivalent to a class in UML terminology.

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
[2]
[SOURCE: ISO 19115-1:2014 , 4.12]
3.10
data type
set of distinct values, characterized by properties of those values, and by operations on those values
EXAMPLE The data type “Boolean” with properties “unordered”, “exact” and “non-numeric”, and with operations
“equal”, “not”, “and” and “or”.
Note 1 to entry: Properties of data type values are ordered or unordered, exact or approximate, numeric or non-
[7]
numeric and, if ordered, bounded or unbounded, as described in ISO/IEC 11404:2007
[7]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC 11404:2007 , 3.12]
3.11
dataset
identifiable collection of data
Note 1 to entry: A dataset can be a smaller grouping of data which, though limited by some constraint such as spatial
extent or feature type, is located physically within a larger dataset. Theoretically, a dataset can be as small as a single
feature (4.5) or feature attribute contained within a larger dataset. A hardcopy map or chart can be considered a
dataset.
[2]
[SOURCE: ISO 19115-1:2014 , 4.3]
3.12
mapping
correspondence between instances of one model and instances of another model that represent the same
meaning
[8]
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 18876-1:2003 , 3.1.14]
3.13
crosswalk
mapping (3.12) of the elements, semantics, and syntax from one metadata (3.6) scheme to those of another
[9]
Note 1 to entry: Definition taken from Understanding Metadata, 2004, NISO Press.
[6]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 , 3.1]
3.14
domain difference
type of heterogeneity (3.15) arising from different kinds of contexts or cultures
[6]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 , 3.3]
3.15
heterogeneity
difference arising from different descriptions of the same concept
[6]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 , 3.4]
3.16
information delivery manual specification
IDM specification
instance of an IDM (3.2) and its components
[1]
[SOURCE: ISO 29481-3:2022 , 3.3]

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
3.17
interoperability
capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner
that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units
[10]
[SOURCE: ISO/IEC 2382:2015 , 2120585, modified - The notes to entry have been removed.]
4 Abbreviations
BIM Building Information Modelling
GIS Geographic Information System
GML Geography Markup Language
ICT Information and communications technology
IFC Industry Foundation Classes
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
MDA Model driven architecture
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure
UML Unified Modeling Language
XML eXtensible Markup Language
1D One Dimensional
2D Two Dimensional
3D Three Dimensional
5 Metadata for BIM-to-GIS and GIS-to-BIM
5.1 Context for facilitating data exchange through metadata
[11]
Within the framework provided by ISO 7817-1:2024 , which establishes the concepts of the Level of
Information Need (LoIN), metadata play a critical role in standardizing and enabling meaningful data
exchange between GIS and BIM systems. The LoIN framework defines the extent, structure, and semantic
granularity of the information required at various stages of a project life cycle, ensuring that the exchanged
data are aligned with the intended use and decision-making context of each stakeholder. In this context,
metadata facilitate semantic interoperability by:
— Defining the scope and granularity of information to be exchanged between systems;
[5]
— Supporting the data exchange process as defined in ISO 19650-1:2018 , whereby metadata document
the fulfilment of information requirements;
— Enabling the alignment of schemas and datasets between BIM and GIS systems via shared metadata
registries.
Figure 1 illustrates the architecture of metadata-driven dataexchange between GIS and BIM systems under
the LoIN framework. Figure 1 distinguishes between the Application Model Level (which refers to the

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
[2] [1]
metadata schemas such as ISO 19115-1:2014 for GIS and ISO 29481-3:2022 for BIM) and the Data Level
(which includes concrete datasets and feature instances such as ifcXML files or CityGML features).
Figure 1 — Data exchange between BIM and GIS through metadata in the context of BIM Level of
Information Need (LoIN)
A metadata registry (compliant with the ISO/IEC 11179 series) acts as the semantic bridge between systems,
enabling structured and interoperable communication between BIM and GIS environments. The architecture
supports bidirectional information requests and responses, allowing both GIS and BIM systems to act as
either the information provider or consumer, depending on the use case and project context.
In this model:
[1]
— A BIM system may initiate an information request based on its IDM Data Schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 ),
aligned with LoIN (Level of Information Need) specifications.
— The request is semantically interpreted by the GIS system, which uses the GIS Metadata Schema
[2]
(ISO 19115-1:2014 ) to identify relevant datasets and generate a structured response.
— The response, expressed in GIS metadata, is then translated and contextualized within the BIM
environment using cross mapping results and metadata registry entries.
— Conversely, a GIS system may initiate a request for detailed building information or spatial context,
which is constructed according to the GIS metadata schema and fulfilled by the BIM system using IFC-
based content.
— In both directions, the respective application schemas (e.g., CityGML, InfraGML, IFC) define the content
structure, while the metadata registry provides semantic correspondence and interoperability across
schema boundaries.
This bidirectional exchange mechanism ensures that both GIS-to-BIM and BIM-to-GIS workflows are
supported within a metadata-driven framework and semantically aligned data exchange.

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
5.2 Cross mapping of metadata elements in BIM and GIS
5.2.1 Context for cross mapping
Cross mapping of metadata elements between BIM and GIS aims to ensure semantic interoperability across
[6]
domains with fundamentally different information structures. ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 provides a
standardized procedure for mapping metadata between heterogeneous domain models, and this procedure
is applicable to the semantic alignment of BIM and GIS metadata. By aligning heterogeneous metadata
elements through this structured approach, cross mapping improves the consistency and interpretability of
data exchanged between BIM and GIS environments.
Figure 2 illustrates the three main processes involved in the data element concept mapping procedure, as
[6]
defined in ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 . This procedure supports semantic alignment between heterogeneous
metadata structures, such as those found in BIM and GIS domains.
[6]
Figure 2 — Procedure for data element concept mapping (ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 )
— Identifying Metadata Element Sets : The first step is to determine which metadata element sets should be
mapped. This involves surveying available metadata schemas within the domain of interest (e.g., BIM’s
[2]
IDM data schema and GIS’s ISO 19115-1:2014 metadata schema). This step ensures that relevant and
compatible datasets are selected for further analysis.

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
— Grouping Data Element Concepts : Once the candidate metadata element sets are identified, the next
process is to classify and organize the data element concepts. This step includes the following sub-
processes:
— Identifying object classes (e.g., specId, authoring, businessContextMap, er),
Grouping concepts according to their object classes,
Identifying and grouping properties associated with each object class (e.g., guid, shortTitle,
documentStatus). This classification supports the creation of semantic groupings across different
metadata standards.
— Mapping Data Element Concepts : The final step involves mapping the grouped concepts into a unified
table. Each row corresponds to a common data element concept, and columns represent its equivalents
across the different metadata standards. Giving notes according to types of heterogeneity (e.g., lexical,
hierarchical, syntactic differences) supports documentation and interoperability tracking, and clarifies
how each mapping was interpreted.
To apply this procedure in the context of BIM and GIS metadata schema cross mapping, the general concept
[6]
mapping process defined in ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 can be reinterpreted as follows:
Table 1 — BIM and GIS metadata schema cross mapping procedure (based on
[6]
ISO/IEC TR 20943-5:2013 , figure 2)
Main Processes Sub-Processes(adapted to BIM and GIS context)
a) Identifying BIM metadata schema (e.g., ISO 29481-3)
and GIS metadata schema (e.g., ISO 19115-1) to be
mapped
b) Identifying BIM application schema (e.g., IFC classes)
and GIS application schema (e.g., CityGML, InfraGML,
Identifying metadata element sets
IndoorGML, or Indoor Feature Model(ISO 19164)) to
be mapped
c) Determining the data exchange context (e.g., utility
data, floor plans) and Level of Information Need
(LoIN)
d) Grouping BIM and GIS metadata elements by
shared object classes (e.g., specId, authoring,
businessContextMap, er)
Grouping data element concepts e) Identifying properties (e.g., guid, shortTitle,
documentStatus) within each object class
f) Organizing metadata elements by corresponding
properties across BIM and GIS domains
g) Identifying common data element concepts (e.g.,
IfcWall ↔ Construction::WallSurface)
h) Mapping BIM and GIS elements to shared concepts
Mapping data element concepts using semantic correspondences stored in the
metadata registry (ISO/IEC 11179)
i) Giving notes according to types of heterogeneity for
documentation and interoperability tracking
5.2.2 Cross mapping consideration between IDM data schema and GIS metadata schema
To enable reliable semantic interoperability between BIM and GIS, it is essential to align the structural
hierarchy of metadata elements defined in their respective standards. The IDM schema defined in
[1] [2]
ISO 29481-3:2022 (BIM domain) and the metadata schema defined in ISO 19115-1:2014 (GIS domain)
follow different conceptual layering. However, from a GIS domain perspective, their elements can be cross-

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
mapped by organizing them into commonly shared structural levels: Package, Class, and Attribute. Table 2
presents a comparative view of these structural levels, their meanings in GIS and BIM for cross-mapping.
[2] [1]
Table 2 — Structural mapping between ISO 19115-1:2014 (GIS metadata) and ISO 29481-3:2022
(IDM data schema)
GIS GIS BIM BIM Commonality Difference
Metadata
Description IDM level Description
level
Package A top-level grouping GIS packages are
A structural container
structure of meta- modular and UML-
that groups multiple Both structure
data documents that based; BIM IDM
Group of ele- metadata blocks based metadata into
organizes classes by often mixes grouped
ments on higher-level intent, reusable, top-level
topic or purpose such and granular ele-
such as business con- groupings
as MD_Metadata or ments without strict
text or authorship.
CI_ResponsibleParty. boundaries
A unit representing a
specific theme or role GIS classes typically
A discrete information Both organize
(e.g., dataset identifi- represent spatial or
unit or requirement logically relat-
cation, distribution), service metadata;
Class Single element block with a specific ed elements for
often containing mul- BIM classes follow
purpose, such as an interpretation and
tiple attributes such process- or life cy-
informationUnit. exchange
as MD_Identification cle-driven logic
or MD_Distribution
Properties assigned
A metadata property GIS attributes often
to an element used Both use attributes
inside a class that rely on controlled
for identification or to assign identity,
Attribute expresses actual val- Attribute vocabularies; BIM
description such as status, and seman-
ues (text, date, codes, attributes may be
guId, description, doc- tic meaning
etc.). free-text
umentStatus
When cross-mapping metadata between GIS and BIM domains, it is crucial to account for the structural
and conceptual differences inherent in their respective standards. While GIS metadata models such as
[2]
ISO 19115-1:2014 rely on well-defined UML-based hierarchical structures—where Packages contain
[1]
Classes, and Classes contain well-typed Attributes—BIM’s IDM schema defined in ISO 29481-3:2022
adopts a more document-centric, purpose-driven structure. This structure often blends grouped and atomic
elements without strict class boundaries, leading to potential ambiguity during mapping.
EXAMPLE
— A single BIM "information unit" may encapsulate what GIS would consider multiple attributes, or conversely, an
entire class.
— BIM schemas may not always distinguish between group-of-elements (composite) and single-element (atomic)
metadata, while GIS enforces such distinctions.
— GIS attributes frequently use controlled vocabularies and externally referenced code lists, while BIM metadata
may rely on free-form text, complicating semantic equivalence.
Thus, successful cross mapping demands:
— Explicit classification of BIM metadata elements into equivalent GIS structural levels (e.g., identifying
whether an IDM element is a Package-like container or a Class-like unit).
— Normalization strategies to reconcile free-text BIM attributes with GIS code lists and datatypes.
— Semantic clarification where similarly named elements may differ in meaning, scope, or granularity.
By approaching the mapping with an understanding of structural levels, interoperability efforts can reduce
mismatches, keep the meaning consistent, and support accurate two-way metadata translation between GIS
and BIM systems.
ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
5.2.3 Types of relationship
The types of cross mapping relationships between BIM and GIS metadata elements can be classified into five
structural types, as shown in Table 3. These types define how metadata elements from different domains
[2]
(e.g., BIM's IDM data schema and GIS's ISO 19115-1:2014 metadata schema) relate to each other in terms
of alignment, granularity, and semantic correspondence.
— 1:1 (One-to-One): A BIM metadata element maps directly and uniquely to a corresponding element in
GIS. This type of relationship represents the most straightforward mapping case and often indicates
semantic equivalence.
— 1:N (One-to-Many): A BIM metadata element maps to multiple GIS metadata elements. This may occur
when BIM encapsulates composite information (e.g., a general concept like IfcAddress) that GIS models
as separate, more granular elements (cityName, postalCode, streetName).
— N:1 (Many-to-One): Multiple BIM metadata elements map to a GIS element. This form of aggregation
arises when BIM models discrete attributes that are represented more abstractly in GIS, requiring
consolidation for integration.
— 1:None (One-to-None): A BIM metadata element has no corresponding equivalent in GIS, often due to
domain-specific concepts not modeled in spatial systems (e.g., construction schedules, project phases). If
the BIM metadata element is needed in GIS applications, corresponding equivalent metadata element is
required to support.
— None:1 or N (GIS-only): One or more GIS metadata elements exist without a BIM equivalent. This
typically involves geospatial concepts (e.g., coordinate reference systems) that are absent in BIM
metadata elements. When such GIS metadata elements are necessary for BIM use, the BIM metadata
elements should be extended to support.
Table 3 — Types of BIM and GIS metadata cross mapping relationships
Relation Type Description
One BIM metadata element maps directly to one GIS
1 :1 (One-to-One)
element.
1:N (One-to-Many) One BIM element corresponds to multiple GIS classes.
N:1 (Many-to-One) Multiple BIM elements map to a single GIS element.
1:None (One-to-None) BIM metadata exists but has no GIS equivalent.
None:1 or N(None-to-One or Many) GIS metadata exists with no BIM equivalent.
5.2.4 Cross mapping result
The result of the cross mapping procedure between BIM and GIS metadata, derived from the IDM Data
[1] [2]
Schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 ) and the GIS Metadata Schema (ISO 19115-1:2014 ), is summarized in
Annex A. This cross mapping reflects the outcomes of a systematic process of identifying, grouping, and
aligning metadata elements across domains with fundamentally different information structures.
The mapping aims to promote semantic interoperability by establishing structured correspondences
between metadata elements from BIM and GIS. Each mapping entry is classified by a relationship type (e.g.,
1:1, 1:N, N:1, 1:None, None:1), and includes descriptive notes explaining the rationale for the correspondence.
These notes address aspects such as semantic equivalence, granularity mismatch, and potential schema
extension.
The detailed layout and semantics of the cross mapping table, including definitions of each column and
guidance for interpreting the entries, are provided in Annex C.
5.3 Contextual foundation for GIS-BIM interoperability
Establishing effective interoperability between GIS and BIM domains requires recognizing two
complementary data exchange use cases, distinguished by the direction of data flow and which system

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
initiates the information request. These use cases reflect different stakeholder roles and decision contexts
in GIS-based and BIM-based environments, and they are implemented through a metadata-driven workflow
under the Level of Information Need (LoIN) framework.
— In the GIS-to-BIM use case, the BIM system acts as the client and initiates a request for surrounding
geospatial resources managed in a GIS environment, such as smart pole assets with associated sensor
devices. The BIM-originated request is structured using the IDM data schema and is transformed into a
GIS-interpretable metadata representation using registry-stored mappings (“BIM metadata for GIS-to-
BIM”), so that constraints such as extent, reference system, and LoIN intent can be consistently evaluated
by the GIS supplier and returned in a BIM-interpretable form.
— In the BIM-to-GIS use case, the GIS system acts as the client and initiates a request for externally managed
BIM resources required to enrich GIS-based models, such as safety-related assets (e.g., fire alarm devices
and associated sensors). The GIS-originated request is structured using the GIS metadata schema and
transformed into a BIM-interoperable representation via registry-stored mappings (“GIS metadata for
BIM-to-GIS”), enabling the BIM supplier to retrieve IFC-based content according to the specified LoIN and
to deliver results in a GIS-interpretable form aligned with the target application schema (e.g., CityGML).
Across both directions, the semantic gap arises from differing priorities: GIS emphasizes georeferenced
feature relationships and broad spatial context, while BIM emphasizes detailed object structure and
construction semantics. The metadata registry provides the semantic bridge by applying cross-mappings at
the metadata schema level and, where needed, supporting alignment across application schemas, enabling
consistent interpretation and fitness-for-use assessment in accordance with LoIN.
5.4 Metadata for GIS-to-BIM
5.4.1 General
BIM metadata for GIS-to-BIM supports a BIM client engaged in building design who requires access to
surrounding geospatial information maintained in a GIS system (e.g., smart pole assets with associated
sensor devices). Because GIS resources are structured according to georeferenced semantics and GIS
metadata conventions, they cannot be directly interpreted within the BIM environment without metadata-
driven alignment. To facilitate data exchange, the BIM client needs to determine in advance the existence,
relevance, and usability of the requested GIS resources in accordance with the required Level of Information
Need (LoIN).
This determination is enabled through the provision and access of GIS resource metadata that can be
transformed into a BIM-interpretable structure via the metadata registry. In particular, the BIM-originated
request is structured using the IDM data schema and then mapped to the GIS metadata schema using registry-
stored correspondences (“BIM metadata for GIS-to-BIM”), so that key constraints such as extent, reference
system, and LoIN intent are consistently expressed and evaluated by the GIS supplier. The transformed
response metadata is then restructured back into IDM form, allowing the BIM client to preliminarily assess
availability and fitness-for-use before incorporating the delivered geospatial information into the BIM
workflow.
5.4.2 BIM metadata for GIS-to-BIM
Figure 3 illustrates a metadata-driven GIS-to-BIM data exchange use case under the level of information need
(LoIN) framework. Consistent with the architecture shown in Figure 1 , this use case distinguishes between
the application model level and the data level. At the application model level, the exchange is mediated
[2]
through metadata schemas, namely the GIS metadata schema (ISO 19115-1:2014 ) and the BIM metadata
[1]
schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 ). At the Data Level, the actual datasets are governed by the relevant application
schemas (e.g., GIS application schemas for geospatial datasets and IFC-based BIM schemas for BIM datasets).
[12]
A metadata registry (ISO/IEC 11179-1:2023 ) acts as the semantic bridge that enables interoperability by
storing and applying semantic correspondences during request/response transformation.

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
Figure 3 — Use case of GIS-to-BIM data exchange through metadata
Conceptually, this GIS-to-BIM exchange follows the application schema-based transfer model in
[13]
ISO 19109:2025 . In this use case, the BIM system acts as the client that initiates the information request,
and the GIS system acts as the supplier that evaluates the request and provides the response.
The overall process consists of four phases:
— Phase 1 — Generation of information request by BIM client (application model level): A BIM user
initiates an information request within the BIM system. The request is structured according to the IDM
[1]
data schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 ) and explicitly states the required LoIN level for the intended use.
— Phase 2 — Transformation of the BIM request into a GIS-interoperable metadata format
(application model level): To be interpreted by the GIS supplier, the BIM-originated request is
transformed from the IDM-based structure into a representation compliant with the GIS Metadata
[2]
Schema (ISO 19115-1:2014 ). This transformation is performed using predefined cross-mapping results
and semantic correspondences stored in the metadata registry, particularly the entries categorized as
“BIM metadata for GIS-to-BIM.” Through this transformation, key request parameters (e.g., scope, extent,
reference system, and LoIN requirements) are expressed in a form that the GIS system can consistently
interpret.
— Phase 3 — Retrieval of relevant data by the GIS system (Data Level): The GIS system receives the
[2]
transformed request and evaluates it using ISO 19115-1:2014 based metadata. If datasets satisfying
the requested LoIN are available, the GIS system retrieves the relevant geospatial datasets governed by
its GIS application schema(s) and prepares a structured response, including the associated GIS metadata.
— Phase 4 — Transformation of the GIS response for interpretation within the BIM system
(application model level → BIM environment): Because the response is encoded in GIS-oriented
metadata, it may not be directly interpretable within the BIM environment. Therefore, the response
metadata is transformed via the metadata registry into a representation compliant with the IDM data
[1]
schema (ISO 29481-3:2022 ). The transformed metadata enables the BIM client to preliminarily
assess the existence, relevance, and suitability of the supplied geospatial information within the BIM
environment in alignment with the requested LoIN.
A scenario of smart pole facilities and sensing data exchange is used to support understanding of metadata-
driven GIS-to-BIM data exchange. Based on selected metadata examples from Table 4 and the application

ISO/DIS 23143-2:2026(en)
schema correspondence pairs in Table 5, the Phase 1 to Phase 4 procedure of the GIS-to-BIM use case is
described. Table 4 provides the cross-mapped metadata structure used to formulate and transform the
request and response between the GIS metadata schema and the BIM IDM data schema, while Table 5
identifies the target feature types to be exchanged (e.g., a smart pole as CityGML::StreetFurniture and its
sensor device as CityGML::GenericCityObject) and their BIM counterparts (e.g., IfcBuildingElementProxy for
“SmartPole” and IfcSensor).
Annex C presents the cross-mapping results of application schema correspondence between BIM and GIS
[14]
domains as defined in ISO 19164:2024 and can be used a
...