IFC4.3.x-development
IFC4.3.x-development copied to clipboard
buildingSMART
update of scope statements is needed
this requires update - e.g. to correct layout (compare with IFC4.0.2.1 and subpage)
but also to mention that scope now includes infrastructure.
N.B. usually the review by ISO is more focussing on these pages, scope, terms and definitions, introduction, than on the very technical details. So this improvement should be done with priority.
@berlotti - maybe we should also involve some from buildingSMART personel for some of the more formal and organization aspects in those definitions. Also important - all direct references to buildingSMART, websites, etc. should not be in normative text for ISO submission.
we also need to have a possibility to "folk" the documentation generation for ISO, e.g. to have a particular ISO foreword (replacing the buildingSMART foreword) and others. See such different generation options in ifcDoc as a reference.
N.B. not needed for the April submission - but during the work with JWG 12 on final ISO IS ballot.
Suggest you edit directly: https://github.com/buildingSMART/IFC4.3.x-development/blob/master//content/scope.md
Bump - @TLiebich is anything required for the Sunday deadline? If so, if you give me a list of changes which need to have alternative content, I can build a system that allows for multiple versions.
The commit looks a lot because I stripped trailing whitespace, but all I changed was:
- Fixed general usage header so that it actually shows
- Added this sentence: "The following are outside the scope of this release of IFC:" near the end
- Converted the final three list items into bullet points as per https://standards.buildingsmart.org/IFC/RELEASE/IFC4/ADD2_TC1/HTML/schema/views/general-usage/index.htm
I would assume that the first chapters: foreword, introduction, scope, references, terms and definition will be covered by the ISO review process (at least in the past that was of main concern to ISO to have clarity here, whereas from chapter 4 onwards it is domain specific and usually left to the domain experts). So I propose to put this issue on hold for now.