Dion Moult

@beachtom I just chatted with @myoualid and there was a misunderstanding. Because this function returns a nested object it should never traverse inverse attribute relationships since they will always be...

What was the conclusion on this one? It wasn't clear from reading the comments.

https://github.com/buildingSMART/NextGen-IFC/issues/9 https://github.com/IfcOpenShell/IfcOpenShell/issues/668

Agreed, text from a point would be far more common than extents.

I would agree with @bigdoods - the API should be designed in a manner that does not require a browser, nor a UI of any kind. The API should also...

I suspect this is a relatively simple solution. Right now xs:occurs is only requirements. If we add xs:occurs to applicability, then we can treat Required as "filter applicable by matching...

I disagree. These are two different fields, they should not be concatenated into a single attribute. And, if it is stored, why should it be stored _inside_ the IFC file?...

Why is the interpretation vague? There are clear examples here https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/master/Documentation/testcases-ids.md and the meaning seems clear to me https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/master/Documentation/developer-guide.md#optionality

The testcases need updating, but I think the intention is spelled out already: https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/master/Documentation/testcases-ids.md#pass-specification-optionality-and-facet-optionality-can-be-combined https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/master/Documentation/testcases-ids.md#pass-a-prohibited-specification-and-a-prohibited-facet-results-in-a-double-negative Also notably, the occurs can be used to set prohibited. So you can say "This...

Can we please bring back the attribute cardinality? I really don't get the logic for this. There are clear test cases and documentation describing how it is interpreted.