How does Pset_Warranty.PointOfContact connect to IfcOrganisation?

[Moult]

Original post: https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/how-does-pset-warranty-pointofcontact-connect-to-ifcorganisation/3507

The specification states (emphasis mine):

The organization that should be contacted for action under the terms of the warranty. Note that the role of the organization (manufacturer, supplier, installer etc.) is determined by the IfcActorRole attribute of IfcOrganization.

Firstly, the attribute is Roles, not IfcActorRole. Secondly, can it be confirmed that the "foreign key" that relates this property to is Name and not Identification? If so, this should be more explicit in the pset template definition.

[aothms]

Can we advance this to a proposal?

[Moult]

Given that the whole IfcActor part of the schema is increasingly important in non-geometric usecases, and people are waking up to the fact that BIM isn't just geometry with properties, I'd propose to deprecate the PointOfContact property.

Then I'd add WARRANTOR to IfcRoleEnum

Ping @billeast

Before the change: properties would arbitrarily type in a name of an organisation, and maybe it would be right, maybe it would be wrong, but there was no way to check or create a real relationship and would be prone to errors.

After the change: IFC can now officially say there is a WARRANTOR role fulfilled by an organisation, and you can link that warrantor to zero or more products. Here's the diagram of relationships:

IfcProduct <- IfcRelAssignsActor(*WARRANTOR) -> IfcActor -> IfcOrganisation(*WARRANTOR,etc)

Note: *WARRANTOR instance shared between IfcRelAssignsActor & IfcOrganisation - this ensures that they are linked correctly.

This also makes it consistent with how you assign a MANUFACTURER role.

[billeast]

@Moult Agree that the blank field to provide the guarantor is not the way to go. As you correctly state, having a link to an ifcOrganization is better.