How do we ensure the identity of an object in a digital world is uniquely matched to a physical object in the real world?

Superficially, it seems straightforward to ensure the identity of a physical object in the real world is uniquely matched to an object in a digital world. But in reality – says Paul Wilkinson – how buildings, infrastructure and related systems, equipment and objects are identified is dependent upon what information might be needed, where, when, and by whom, across the varied life-cycles of different types of built and managed assets.

As part of nima’s GIIG think tank, I helped write a discussion paper about asset identification (PDF, will open in new tab). It outlines a range of scenarios (including some philosophical challenges including Trigger’s Broom and The Ship of Theseus). It then details some of the standards relating to identification of physical assets and their parts, identification of information containers, and applying unique labelling. In discussion it concludes no single approach can provide a unique asset identifier that can be applied to all types of assets (large and small, static and mobile, and covering different aspects of their lifecycles), across multiple organisations and geographies, over short and long periods of time. The most practicable approach is to work with multiple identifiers and to connect and cross-reference the respective systems.

Recognising that asset identification is a key and increasingly important area of digital professional practice, nima invites its members and industry colleagues to offer their own feedback on related challenges and opportunities.

Asset identification – some problematic scenarios

The paper identifies a dozen scenarios where the seemingly simple process of assigning a single unique identifier can be problematic, particularly if it is intended as a persistent ID across the whole life of the asset. For example

1. Planned, yet to be created assets – Asset identification will be necessary before assets physically exist, so that their full life history incorporates information from early planning and design decision-making.
2. Historic assets – Many structures, buildings and their contents were created decades, even centuries, before asset identification was even considered. Newly created digital records will inevitably exclude unknown and concealed asset details.
3. Extensive assets or systems – Some assets are so extensive (for example, landscapes, airports, highway systems, etc) that they require multiple geospatial references or a ‘bounding box’ approach, and will need to be subdivided into identifiable zones or sections.
4. Large numbers of identical assets – It may be impractical or overkill to individually and uniquely identify 100s of common low-value items – identical chairs in a school, for example. Batch numbering may be used for numerous identical low-value items.
5. Partially replaced or modified assets – Some assets comprise different parts. A wall, for example, will normally have a foundation of some kind; if the wall is replaced, the original foundation might be retained and reused, so the new wall is actually only partially a new wall.
6. Functionally persistent but completely replaced assets – two related examples:
   – Trigger’s broom – In the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses, road sweeper Trigger receives a medal from the local council for saving money. He claims he has used the same broom for 20 years, only to reveal later that it has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in that time.
   – Ship of Theseus – The Greek historian Plutarch asked whether a legendary wooden ship—incrementally repaired by replacing its old planks with new ones over many years—was still the exact same ship. Moreover, if someone collected all the discarded planks and assembled a second ship, which would be the “real” ship?
7. Repurposed or recycled assets – Some assets, created for a particular defined purpose, but may later be used for a completely different purpose, sometimes by a different organisation.
8. Relocated, removed, mobile or temporary assets – Similarly, equipment may be removed from one facility and relocated, installed and reused in another. Asset identification needs to be resilient to periodic changes of location.
9. Demolished assets – Asset status can be used to reflect assets that are sold, mothballed, decommissioned or demolished.
10. Transferred assets – Some assets may also be subject to multiple changes of ownership or stewardship during their lifecycles (any ‘golden thread’ will need to be resilient to such changes).
11. Digital Twins, connected assets and asset health – Unique asset identification is critical when it comes to monitoring asset status and performance, particularly where devices and systems are generating and/or receiving data (‘Internet of Things’).
12. Intangible information assets – One purpose of asset identification is to tie a tangible object to its digital record. As well as identification, this record itself adds intrinsic value to the asset (for example, consider the full service history of a motor vehicle).

The standards landscape

Depending upon the context, the GIIG – with help from BSI’s Dan Rossiter – identified a (not exhaustive) list of existing international standards that may be applied (and, as of July 2026, there is ongoing work in the field to define further guidance).

For identification of physical/notional assets and their parts:

• ISO/IEC 81346
• ISO 4157
• ISO 14224
• ISO 3166-1
• (While not expressly about identification, ISO 55000 is the international standard defining the principles, terminology, and foundational concepts of asset management)

For identification of information containers:

• ISO 19650 (of course)
• ISO 22014
• ISO 23386
• ISO 13567

The GIIG also highlights the role of GS1, an international organisation which develops and maintains standards used as the basis for barcodes and other product and asset identification. GS1 identification keys are aligned with relevant international identification standards, including ISO 15459 and ISO 6523.

Used in combination, these standards help to provide common and consistent approaches to asset identification. As international standards, they also provide longevity – necessary when built and managed asset life-cycles are typically measured in decades or even centuries.

And the standards landscape is evolving:

• At the time of writing, there is an ongoing consultation on a CEN proposal (see BSI website; consultation closes 10 August 2026) to establish a European Standard providing requirements, recommendations and guidance for identification of assets, systems, components, locations and related information in digital information models and for labelling in built facilities. This would support implementation of BIM-enabled information management by enabling objects, systems, locations and their relations to be identified consistently across disciplines, organizations, software systems and lifecycle stages.
• Public consultation on proposed revisions to ISO 8544 (Life-cycle costing of buildings and constructed assets – Code of practice) is also open (see BSI website; consultation closes 22 August 2026). Section 11 specifically addresses the handover from construction to maintenance, and details what should be in an asset register, including asset type location unique identifiers and unique asset identifiers.

Discussing asset identification

As previously mentioned, the GIIG suggests the most practicable approach is to work with multiple identifiers and to connect and cross-reference the respective systems. Organisations and the industry professionals working for them will need to consider what information might be needed, where, when, and by whom, across the varied life-cycles of their different types of built and managed assets. Typically, the outcomes will involve multiple identifiers, ranging from location and functional identifiers to common items identified by their manufacturer. However, in an industry increasingly focused on the whole life of built and managed assets, it will also be necessary to factor in lifecycle changes over time (4D).

For some static assets (buildings, infrastructure, etc), geolocation may be an obvious and most logical starting point. But in some organisations it may be more important to know the duty/system the asset is part of rather than its location (though location remains an important attribute of the asset). In the geospatial context, the discussion paper mentions UPRNs (unique property reference numbers) and USRNs (unique street reference numbers) – unique identifiers for every addressable location and street in Great Britain, available as open data under an Open Government License (OGL) from Ordnance Survey.

Such approaches can provide persistent geospatial identification for individual buildings (and within them, floors, rooms, etc), but additional identifiers will be needed for non-static assets. Moreover, lifecycle changes such as pre-construction planning applications, transfers of responsibility or ownership, repurposing, or partial replacement or modification, will require retention of identification over time (a ‘4D’ approach).

Spatial persistence combined with time is the essence of ‘4D ontologies’. By adding the time dimension to space, it becomes possible to identify a building or other asset that does not yet exist (still in the planning or design stages), or to identify an asset that no longer exists. A 4D ontological approach allows computers to identify a 3D object over time. It gives every object a permanent identity and helps track how it changes over time, bearing in mind that some assets – railway bridges, nuclear installations, major public buildings, for example – may have service lives spanning centuries.

One 4D ontology already in use in the built and managed environment is IES (Information Exchange Standard) – developed by UK government bodies to support secure government data exchange and the UK National Digital Twin programme. IES gives digital twins a standard “language” that allows different systems to share information, track objects across time, and communicate clearly.

Continuing the asset identification discussion …

Recognising that asset identification is a key and increasingly important area of digital professional practice, nima and the GIIG invite industry colleagues to read the full paper (PDF, will open in new tab), and to offer their own feedback on related challenges and opportunities:

• a short outline (with links) has been posted for discussion on LinkedIn (here)
• nima members have also been invited to contribute via the discussion forum in the members’ section of the nima website.

The GIIG will monitor feedback and keep the discussion paper under review for possible future updates.