pasi-paasiala

> Okay, so maybe we can make that gentlemen's agreement an explicitly written out agreement (maybe on the README cover page of this repository?)? > > The late binding boundary...

This is a conscious decision. We first implement this low hanging fruit. We have plans to think about the unmanned case also. The reason why we took this approach was...

There are very few useful attributes in IFC. Most of the expected use cases deal with things like property sets and classifications. That's why I'd prefer to keep the attribute...

The cardinality for attributes then can only be min/max = 0 or min/max = 1. Or should cardinality be applied to the value of the attribute, for example, if it...

In the Vilnius ISG meeting we had a discussion about this and it was proposed that we could have a "preferred" display unit added. I don't mind.

When we did the original version of BCF, it was also our assumption that IfcProject's GlobalId would do the trick. It doesn't seem to work for various reasons. Another advantage...

Also the first line: ``` ``` should be removed.

> > The lines starting from here should be removed, since they're outdated. https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/master/Development/ids.xsd#L67 > > I think the comment is valid, and relevant. True. I didn't realize that this...

Fix the IFC file for 1.0.

One suggestion from @CBenghi is to add reasonable tolerances to the measures table.