Accesso libero

Protecting the intellectual property of built environment designs using blockchain technology

 e   
14 set 2023
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO

Cita
Scarica la copertina

Fig. 1:

Example of GUIDs highlighted within an IFC entity.
GUID, global unique identifier; IFC, Industry Foundation Classes.
Example of GUIDs highlighted within an IFC entity. GUID, global unique identifier; IFC, Industry Foundation Classes.

Fig. 2:

Illustration of the main sections in a generic IFC file.
IFC, Industry Foundation Classes.
Illustration of the main sections in a generic IFC file. IFC, Industry Foundation Classes.

Fig. 3:

Example of CID DAG.
CID, content identifier; DAG, directed acyclic graph.
Example of CID DAG. CID, content identifier; DAG, directed acyclic graph.

Fig. 4:

NFT smart contract written in Solidity.
NFT, non-fungible token.
NFT smart contract written in Solidity. NFT, non-fungible token.

Fig. 5:

Transaction confirmation page for deploying the smart contract.
UTC, universal time coordinated.
Transaction confirmation page for deploying the smart contract. UTC, universal time coordinated.

Fig. 6:

Design information example formatted to comply with JSON schema.
JSON, JavaScript Object Notation.
Design information example formatted to comply with JSON schema. JSON, JavaScript Object Notation.

Fig. 7:

Brownie Python script to mint a design NFT.
NFT, non-fungible token.
Brownie Python script to mint a design NFT. NFT, non-fungible token.

Fig. 8:

Transaction input data show the URI of the minted NFT.
NFT, non-fungible token; URI, uniform resource identifier.
Transaction input data show the URI of the minted NFT. NFT, non-fungible token; URI, uniform resource identifier.

Fig. 9:

OpenSea listing for the minted NFT as proof of ERC-721 compatibility.
ERC, Ethereum Request for Comment; NFT, non-fungible token.
OpenSea listing for the minted NFT as proof of ERC-721 compatibility. ERC, Ethereum Request for Comment; NFT, non-fungible token.

Fig. 10:

Test design models: (a) original design; (b) derivative design.
Test design models: (a) original design; (b) derivative design.

Hash formula used to generate the entities hash list_

Parameter Value Parameter description
Hashing algorithm SHA256 Determine the desired hashing algorithm
Salt IFC Salt is a set of characters used to increase the complexity of the original hashed content
Iteration 1 Number of times that the hash should be rehashed
Length 64 The number of characters in the generated hashes

Examples of the input and output of the hashing function_

Input (entity) Output (SHA256 hash)
#12=IFCDIRECTION((1.,0.,0.)); “3d896c6580d86c5895a178d5bdb45ec3901cf3118881495c86caf38b70730a5b”
#14=IFCDIRECTION((-1.,0.,0.)); “fd7a34687b10e217a47657bd93c49340ed00fa59a2f8667a072453160aef9767”
#16=IFCDIRECTION((0.,1.,0.)); “8eeea131de37b45cc0057d63a7e115942257f3315791061adca5ff0704e7f9ea”
#18=IFCDIRECTION((0.,-1.,0.)); “69f375f1c87d560e5981d8168070afdcf6f85953cad3e9d9b6a7e8b218a0c327”

Fingerprint testing results_

Comparison aspects Original design Derivative design
Aspect 1: GUIDs
    Number of GUIDs 353 240
    Overlapping GUIDs 238
Aspect 2: Entity hashes
    Number of hashes 7,377 5,232
    Overlapping hashes 100
Aspect 3: IPFS CIDs
    Number of chunk CIDs 3 2
    Overlapping CIDs 0
Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
1 volte all'anno
Argomenti della rivista:
Ingegneria, Introduzioni e rassegna, Ingegneria, altro