Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling

Stephen Oliver, Farzad Pour Rahimian

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Non-ancillary equipment makes significant contribution to building energy demand, consuming as much as half of total energy consumption and three quarters of consumption during inoccupancy. Current proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling does not reflect physical or social complexities of mediating equipment, failing to suitably represent equipment and seemingly incompatible with inoccupancy scheduling. This paper draws comparison between computers and conventional occupants attempting to identify the extent which it is applicable to energy modelling. It concludes with the concession of its lack of relevance in inoccupancy equipment scheduling, though inherently convenient and suggests partial decoupling of agents and non-ancillary equipment during occupancy. Proximity-as-utility is herein defined as equipment scheduling defining utility as a Boolean-state power density necessitating the presence of a proximal agent, accommodating short periods where equipment and agent do not cohabit a discrete space.
Original languageEnglish
Pages10-15
Number of pages6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2019
EventCreative Construction Conference 2018 - Radisson Blu Plaza, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Duration: 30 Jun 20183 Jul 2018
http://2018.creative-construction-conference.com/index.html

Conference

ConferenceCreative Construction Conference 2018
CountrySlovenia
CityLjubljana
Period30/06/183/07/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

Proximity
Energy Consumption
Energy utilization
Scheduling
Energy
Decoupling
Partial
Modeling

Keywords

  • building simulation
  • occupant ontology
  • virtual actors
  • moral agents

Cite this

Oliver, S., & Pour Rahimian, F. (2019). Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling. 10-15. Paper presented at Creative Construction Conference 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia. https://doi.org/10.3311/CCC2018-002
Oliver, Stephen ; Pour Rahimian, Farzad. / Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling. Paper presented at Creative Construction Conference 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia.6 p.
@conference{ec5a2817945d4cfaaa547bcac83c19ef,
title = "Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling",
abstract = "Non-ancillary equipment makes significant contribution to building energy demand, consuming as much as half of total energy consumption and three quarters of consumption during inoccupancy. Current proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling does not reflect physical or social complexities of mediating equipment, failing to suitably represent equipment and seemingly incompatible with inoccupancy scheduling. This paper draws comparison between computers and conventional occupants attempting to identify the extent which it is applicable to energy modelling. It concludes with the concession of its lack of relevance in inoccupancy equipment scheduling, though inherently convenient and suggests partial decoupling of agents and non-ancillary equipment during occupancy. Proximity-as-utility is herein defined as equipment scheduling defining utility as a Boolean-state power density necessitating the presence of a proximal agent, accommodating short periods where equipment and agent do not cohabit a discrete space.",
keywords = "building simulation, occupant ontology, virtual actors, moral agents",
author = "Stephen Oliver and {Pour Rahimian}, Farzad",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "30",
doi = "10.3311/CCC2018-002",
language = "English",
pages = "10--15",
note = "Creative Construction Conference 2018 ; Conference date: 30-06-2018 Through 03-07-2018",
url = "http://2018.creative-construction-conference.com/index.html",

}

Oliver, S & Pour Rahimian, F 2019, 'Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling', Paper presented at Creative Construction Conference 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30/06/18 - 3/07/18 pp. 10-15. https://doi.org/10.3311/CCC2018-002

Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling. / Oliver, Stephen; Pour Rahimian, Farzad.

2019. 10-15 Paper presented at Creative Construction Conference 2018, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

TY - CONF

T1 - Are computers agents? Considering the implication of classifying computers as occupants on energy consumption and proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling

AU - Oliver, Stephen

AU - Pour Rahimian, Farzad

PY - 2019/6/30

Y1 - 2019/6/30

N2 - Non-ancillary equipment makes significant contribution to building energy demand, consuming as much as half of total energy consumption and three quarters of consumption during inoccupancy. Current proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling does not reflect physical or social complexities of mediating equipment, failing to suitably represent equipment and seemingly incompatible with inoccupancy scheduling. This paper draws comparison between computers and conventional occupants attempting to identify the extent which it is applicable to energy modelling. It concludes with the concession of its lack of relevance in inoccupancy equipment scheduling, though inherently convenient and suggests partial decoupling of agents and non-ancillary equipment during occupancy. Proximity-as-utility is herein defined as equipment scheduling defining utility as a Boolean-state power density necessitating the presence of a proximal agent, accommodating short periods where equipment and agent do not cohabit a discrete space.

AB - Non-ancillary equipment makes significant contribution to building energy demand, consuming as much as half of total energy consumption and three quarters of consumption during inoccupancy. Current proximity-as-utility equipment scheduling does not reflect physical or social complexities of mediating equipment, failing to suitably represent equipment and seemingly incompatible with inoccupancy scheduling. This paper draws comparison between computers and conventional occupants attempting to identify the extent which it is applicable to energy modelling. It concludes with the concession of its lack of relevance in inoccupancy equipment scheduling, though inherently convenient and suggests partial decoupling of agents and non-ancillary equipment during occupancy. Proximity-as-utility is herein defined as equipment scheduling defining utility as a Boolean-state power density necessitating the presence of a proximal agent, accommodating short periods where equipment and agent do not cohabit a discrete space.

KW - building simulation

KW - occupant ontology

KW - virtual actors

KW - moral agents

U2 - 10.3311/CCC2018-002

DO - 10.3311/CCC2018-002

M3 - Paper

SP - 10

EP - 15

ER -