Request for Official Schema Update Regarding IfcSpatialZone

[daviddelven]

Problem

Is your request related to a problem? Please describe.

There is a lack of clarity and standardisation in how IfcSpatialZone is being used and implemented in various software tools. This lack of understanding and consistent implementation hinders the effective use of IfcSpatialZone in construction projects. For example, there needs to be more guidance on which types of spatial zones to use for specific purposes, leading to inconsistencies and difficulties in data exchange and collaboration between different stakeholders.

Solution(s)

Describe the solution you'd like. If you have multiple options, list all of them.

1. Update the IFC schema to include more predefined spatial zone types. This would provide more clarity and standardisation in how IfcSpatialZone is used. Specifically, adding the proposed use case cluster types (DECLARATION, VALIDATION, INFORMATION, ANALYSIS) to the IfcSpatialZoneTypeEnum in the latest IFC4.3.x schema or higher is recommended.

2. Develop clear guidelines and documentation on using IfcSpatialZone, including best practices for different use cases.

   These guidelines should address:

   • How to define and use spatial zones for different purposes: covering aspects such as spatial coordination/reservation, spatial definition/declaration, spatial regulation/validation, spatial message/information, and spatial boundaries for analysis & computation.
   • How to implement spatial zones in various software tools: ensuring consistent data exchange and interoperability between different BIM software.
   • How to classify spatial zones using existing classification systems like Uniclass to ensure consistency and interoperability.

3. Promote the use of IfcSpatialZone through educational resources and workshops. This would help to raise awareness of the potential benefits of using IfcSpatialZone and encourage its adoption.

Schema and Documentation Changes

Require schema changes?

• Yes
• No
• Don't know

Require documentation changes?

• Yes
• No
• Don't know

Rule Required

Need for a formal rule? Describe it

• Where rule: a constraint embedded in the IFC schema
• Other normative rule: a normative check of the IFC Validation Service. Every IFC file must pass this check
• Good practice check: just triggers a warning, but the IFC file is still valid
• Don't know

A clear and concise description of the rule:

The rule should encourage users to use predefined IfcSpatialZone types when applicable and provide guidance on defining and classifying custom spatial zone types using IfcObject.ObjectType, Pset_SpatialZoneCommon.Reference, or IfcClassification. This ensures consistency and interoperability in data exchange and collaboration.

Additional Context

• The IfcSpatialZone project aims to establish a common understanding and usage of IfcSpatialZone.
• A survey conducted by the project team revealed that there is a need for users of BIM tools to reserve space in their projects and that IfcSpatialZone has the potential to address this need, especially in the "Space Management - Coordination" use case.
• The project team proposes adding new spatial zone types to address various use cases, including medical, laboratory, catering, landscape architecture, and more.
• Clearer guidelines and documentation are required to facilitate the consistent and effective implementation of these new types in BIM software.

[evandroAlfieri]

Thanks for raising this @daviddelven
However:

1. is a request to change the current schema. This goes beyond the mandate of the IFC Implementers Forum
2. although a good suggestion, it is out of scope too. The IFC Implementers Forum does not produce guidelines for users. It supports software implementers in the development of the IFC standard
3. is similar to the above. A good suggestion, but not in scope for this group.

Unless you have other suggestions for general rules (not use-case based), that can be developed for this topic, my recommendation is to continue this discussion in the Forums or within bSI working groups.

[daviddelven]

Hi, @evandroAlfieri

Thanks for you quick feedback.

I am a bit confused, to be honest. Whenever we have some discussions out of Github, digital or offline based, we sometimes have been addressed to rise them, if technical, to "Github" (btw, without specifying which repository out of the current bunch of them). I understand the matter of this Request, as it still needs further discussion among Software Vendor stakeholders.

Base on that need, why the Implementers Forum is it not a good place for this discussion, assuming the target vendors are here represented and technically supported? I would appreciate a more detailed justification before triggering another issue in another platform or event.

Thanks for your guidance, in advance.

[evandroAlfieri]

It's good to track discussions. I'm just saying that the IFC Implementers Forum has no means to pursue your suggestions.
Its focus is on the test and implementation of the current, official standard. As per its readme, it mainly develops rules for the IFC Validation Service and, when available, may execute small tests.

Your first suggestion is a proposal for a schema change. It needs to go through the proper bSI and ISO processes before becoming a standard and being implemented. The IF can't do anything before that.

[daviddelven]

@evandroAlfieri Understood, regarding this repository, the IF one.

However, I have some doubts as to what is the most effective way to raise the debate on this issue among the software developers targeted by the technical report. Before proceeding with any official changes to the Schema, a further and more thorough testing phase is needed. In that sense, I wonder if Github could not be the scenario, beyond the fact that other repositories would have to be generated, as is already done for other issues. What is clear to me is that forums.buildingsmart.org is not the most efficient place. Many of us have been there for years, and the impact it has is merely informative and only for those who are in the habit of accessing it (not for the rest). I wonder then if the Software Vendors, the target of this purpose, would see something.

First of all, thanks for the quick response.