Actor assignment concept cannot assign actors to type objects

[Moult]

The Actor assignment concept currently describes how to assign actors to objects. This is great, however, more useful than individual objects is type objects. For example, an actor with a role of manufacturer, supplier, cost engineer, construction manager would generally be assigned to object types, process types, and resource types.

Would this mean a new concept, or a modified concept?

[aothms]

I think it could be the same object. IfcRelAssigns already points to IfcObjectDefinition. I think the specialiazations in the concept graph should be removed. These are actually "usages". That way we can just add type object usages as well.

I think there is also a deeper fundamental question underlying this. Do we need in every concept to duplicate usages for concrete elements and types or should we do something similar that we did with property set associations?

[Moult]

Cheers, can I then propose to update the actor assignment diagram to be like this:

IfcActor <- IfcRelAssignsToActor -> IfcObjectDefinition

At least it is a step in the right direction. I don't know what to do for the concept usage table.

[aothms]

+1 from me.

It does sound like some of the concept diagrams are really reduced to just the definition of a IfcRelationship subtype. Maybe that is also a symptom that what we're actually trying to convey should be part of the schema and not usage diagrams...?