Hi, Where can I find the IFC 4 design transfer view spec like the reference view (https://standards.buildingsmart.org/MVD/RELEASE/IFC4/ADD2_TC1/RV1_2/HTML/)?
I can’t find the link under https://technical.buildingsmart.org/standards/mvd/mvd-database/
Thanks,
Danny
Thanks, I noticed it’s empty as well. I need review the spec to understand it’s scope of supported entities.
This is mainly is related to IDM which I haven’t focused on it currently, so maybe I’m wrong, but based on my small knowledge about RV and DT:
RV is a reference view which doesn’t have the ability to change, and is a reference for DT (which has the ability to change and develops based on RV)
So based on this I think this is why bSI included RV but not DT, because DT can be anything and doesn’t have a structure
Actually, there is a DTV, but it has been “suspended” for the time being, while members of the community work on assembling a larger body of more specific use cases and exchange requirements.
One of the issues that was brought up by the initial release of the DTV was that it was too general and yet not comprehensive enough. The problem is that “design transfer” via IFC might be easy for some concepts/objects but very difficult for others (mainly due to the lack of detail in the schema definition of the object). There are cases where the current schema falls short in defining the geometric features of and object, for parametric transfer, such as Stairs, Curtain Wall, Roofs, Railings, complex MEP objects, etc. And if a user wants a “complete” or comprehensive model transferred from one platform to another, the detail and parametric nature of that transfer will be wildly different across a range of objects.
I suspect what we may have to consider is a “DTV” template, but then create more discrete DT “micro-MVDs” based on specific uses cases (e.g. architectural wall design/placement -> structural design, MEP openings/provisions for voids -> architectural/structural wall modeling, etc…). The components of these micro-MVDs might be interchangeable, and allow re-aggregation in other use cases, but the resulting exchanges may need to be at a less comprehensive scope in order to accomplish high-fidelity and detail.
Right now, the focus is on the Reference View while the further work on the DTV is being tackled.
Thanks Jeff for your useful information
I’m going to clarify some of them:
DTV was that it was too general and yet not comprehensive enough.
Even in ISO 19650, especially related to phases and processes, we see just general talks, so obviously IDM should change after ISO 19650 which you in bSI are working on it
The problem is that “design transfer” via IFC might be easy for some concepts/objects but very difficult for others (mainly due to the lack of detail in the schema definition of the object)
One of the obstacles ahead, related to open and closed file formats is this one, (Level of Information Need - LoIN) the size of files! Especially after ISO 19650 the size of files will increase
The components of these micro-MVDs might be interchangeable, and allow re-aggregation in other use cases, but the resulting exchanges may need to be at a less comprehensive scope in order to accomplish high-fidelity and detail.
.The CDE and parametric IFC and lot of talks around
I suspect what we may have to consider is a “DTV” template
Personally I think templates are outdated ideas in information systems, but on the other hand, I don’t know alternatives yet
how can I find the list of entities included in this MVD.
Thanks in advance
There are still no specs or documentation about this. Are there any updates on the DTV?