MatthiasWeise

Agree to this comment. Thanks to @hesrah I just noted that `ObjectType` and `PredefinedType` are used interchangeable in the entity facet. However, my interpretation is also that in case of...

Using IfcAirTerminal is most likely the most convenient solution for IDS users (IFC schema version independent). However, I do not like agreements captured in additional tables. Using the PartOf facet...

We cannot change IFC2x3 and somehow have to deal with this issue. Not sure what will be the best solution or maybe a proper workaround. The alternative proposed by @aothms...

I guess there are two sides of the coin here, make it easy for (1) users = IFC agnostic or (2) software implementation = closer to the IFC schema. I...

I really wonder about this discussion, in particular about this statement: > It's annoying that ifc2x3 has these exceptions and I don't think there is a particular clean solution possible...

I don't see a big difference between the IFC5 proposal and IFC2x3. It is maybe more consistent, but actually leading to the same technical problem: **How to specify a check...

@Moult Relying on PredefinedType could indeed help to some degree, but not in all cases and most likely less efficient. Possible scenario from my point of view: * use entity...

@CBenghi If we agree on a lookup table (i.e. enable to use IFCAIRTERMINAL in IFC2x3), the checking tool must be extended to include those IfcXxx[Type] entities as well.

@andyward I am not sure if I understand the "forward mapping" proposal: in each specification we have the ifcVersion attribute allowing to specify the IFC version(s) to which the requirement...

Good discussion! I am in favour of decoupling occurrence of instances from our requirement statements, even if we loose a little bit of expressiveness. So, I agree with the interpretation...