search

buildingSMART / IFC4.4.x-development

Development of IFC 4.4
Other
8 stars 6 forks source link

Bridge is in core layer in IFC, should it be? #14

Open Moult opened 2 years ago

Moult commented 2 years ago

Original post

In IFC4.3 RC2, Rail, Road, Ports and Waterways, and Tunnel are defined in the Domain Layer of IFC Architecture, while Bridge is defined in the Core Layer. So how was this considered and will this be adjusted in next IFC version?

I wasn't able to verify this, can someone check?

TLiebich commented 2 years ago

I think the issue is obsolete - it must have been an intermediate version in the IFC4.2 time frame. Now in IFC4.3 there is a shared infrastructure elements domain in the shared layer.

Having said this, I'am a bit surprised that there is no bridge domain in the domain specific layer (although road, rail, ports/waterways exists), was there no need for it? @czapplitec @SergejMuhic - are bridge specific elements all covered elsewhere? A need to reach out to Andre?

SergejMuhic commented 2 years ago

I think the issue is obsolete - it must have been an intermediate version in the IFC4.2 time frame. Now in IFC4.3 there is a shared infrastructure elements domain in the shared layer.

Having said this, I'am a bit surprised that there is no bridge domain in the domain specific layer (although road, rail, ports/waterways exists), was there no need for it? @czapplitec @SergejMuhic - are bridge specific elements all covered elsewhere? A need to reach out to Andre?

The results of IFC Bridge were that the entities were mostly just extensions, so at the time it did not make sense to introduce one as it was not clear how these entities will be grouped in the future. Why there is no domain for bridge now is probably just a consequence of no active project advocating for it.

Tagging @anborr

anborr commented 2 years ago

Why there is no domain for bridge now is probably just a consequence of no active project advocating for it.

Exactly. The IFC-Bridge project team has been disolved upon completion of the project.

Moult commented 2 years ago

Ok, if there were truly no new entities for bridge, then I propose to mark this issue as invalid since you can't have a domain without entities in it.

aothms commented 2 years ago

Quick note that in the 4.3.x repo members of domains (uml:Package) can also be predefined type enums and prop/quant sets

Moult commented 2 years ago

OK - do we want to semantically keep bridge as a domain? If so, can someone make a list of their elements?

anborr commented 2 years ago

Please check the Chang Log of IFC 4.2: https://standards.buildingsmart.org/IFC/DEV/IFC4_2/FINAL/HTML/annex/annex-f.htm

I remember IfcBridge and IfcBearing, but there might be more...

Please also check the conceptual model report: https://ifcinfra.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-04-16_04_WP2_ConceptualModelReport.pdf

In any case, the final decision whether to keep Bridge as a domain or not should be taken by a formal bSI body. I propose to approach the InfraRoom Steering Commitee.

Moult commented 2 years ago

Cheers, allocated this issue to the infra team to decide.

berlotti commented 2 years ago

bridge domain to be added

Moult commented 2 years ago

Reopening because I think the bridge domain hasn't been added yet? Or did I miss it?

Moult commented 2 years ago

A note that if the bridge domain is added the diagram in the Introduction section needs to be updated

aothms commented 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't think we're going to make it in time with the required documentation and diagram updates. Postponing to 4.4.