Stefan Jaud

**Vagueness** > Why is the interpretation vague? Does an **optional** requirement on an **optional** attribute specify anything beyond what is already defined in the IFC schema itself? Can it be...

Additional resource describing how to formally do this: [PhD Thesis by Julian Amann](https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1453871/file.pdf)

> we introduce `int_literal` > Can you make a proposal? Yes, I'll prepare a PR. > In order to have more type safety we would have to bind the metrics...

A wild guess would be, that the `ifc` namespace cannot be resolved; however, I'm unsure as to how to fix this.

I don't see the added tag in the full statement - care to double-check?

Nope, still receiving the same error. Do you wish to make a live exchange? I can call you.

Following the publication of `IFC4X3_RC2` this issue can be retired. See the newly proposed `IfcPointByDistanceExpression` [here](https://standards.buildingsmart.org/IFC/DEV/IFC4_3/RC2/HTML/link/ifcpointbydistanceexpression.htm).

> I was under the impression that the schema version was purely as a comment but didn't actually have any impact on the running of the IDS. Is this documented...

To your points: 1. Goes with the next point. 1. Even better if we get it with 4x3_rc2 already. 1. I agree and see it as a good thing as...

Hi @Moult - please consult my paper titled "Georeferencing of IFC Geometries" from this years [20. Ingenieursvermessungskurs](https://www.vde-verlag.de/buecher/537734/ingenieurvermessung-23.html) and try it out yourself with [these instructions](https://github.com/bSI-InfraRoom/IFC-Tunnel-Deployment/blob/main/sprints/sprint1_2.md). I'm happy to support you...