# Proposal to simplify document association

**URL:** <https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/proposal-to-simplify-document-association/3508>\
**Category:** Developers\
**Created:** [April 6, 2021, 1:24am UTC](https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/proposal-to-simplify-document-association/3508 "2021-04-06T01:24:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moult](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forums.buildingsmart.org/moult/32/196_2.png) [@Moult](https://forums.buildingsmart.org/u/Moult)\
**Post date:** [April 6, 2021, 1:24am UTC](https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/proposal-to-simplify-document-association/3508/1 "2021-04-06T01:24:52Z")

</div>

Right now, the document association concept uses an `IfcRelAssociatesDocument` where the `RelatingDocument` data type is an `IfcDocumentSelect`.

This means that you can _either_ relate a Document Reference, which then further references a Document Information, or you can relate a Document Information directly.

This is confusing to users. Especially confusing is that both references and information may contain a potentially conflicting `Location` attribute.

What are people’s thoughts on this? Can this be simplified to change the document select to always require a document reference? Can doc reference and doc information be merged? (I _kinda_ understand how reference may refer to a particular position within the document, so maybe merging isn’t the right way…)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moult](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forums.buildingsmart.org/moult/32/196_2.png) [@Moult](https://forums.buildingsmart.org/u/Moult)\
**Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 5:54am UTC](https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/proposal-to-simplify-document-association/3508/2 "2021-05-04T05:54:49Z")

</div>

Bump. A further interpretation is that a document reference cannot exist without an information - the reference defines the scope (i.e. a part, section identifier, or item reference) or a whole (i.e. the document information itself).

In the context of the conflicting `Location` attribute, this may mean that the reference may specify something like an anchor tag or a sub page, whereas the information may link to the homepage, or cover of the document, etc.

Evidence for this interpretation is given in the diagram below.

The related documentation for `IfcConstructionResource` has this to say on the matter:

> Documents may be published for work plans consisting of schedules, calendars, tasks, and resources. The relationship [IfcRelAssociatesDocument](http://localhost:8001/schema/ifckernel/lexical/ifcrelassociatesdocument.htm) may be used to preserve mappings to such document where _RelatingDocument_ points to an [IfcDocumentReference](http://localhost:8001/schema/ifcexternalreferenceresource/lexical/ifcdocumentreference.htm) and _RelatedObjects_ includes the IfcConstructionResource as shown in Figure 184. _IfcDocumentReference.ItemReference_ identifies the resource within the scope of the document, such as an integer or guid. The _IfcDocumentReference.ReferencedDocument_ corresponds to the document which is uniquely identified by _IfcDocumentInformation.DocumentId_ and/or _IfcDocumentInformation.PublicationLocation_ . Such document mapping allows items in the document to be updated from the building information model and vice-versa.

This paragraph needs updating. `ItemReference` should now be `Identification`. Also `DocumentId` should be `Identification`. Also `PublicationLocation` should be `Location`.

The diagram below also connotes some semantic meaning of the `Name` attribute, but I unconvinced that this is meaningful given no other evidence in the documentation of semantic importance.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/buildingsmart1/original/2X/5/502ca07a65e2d1088e1b147ecd42e2995cfefc22.png)

Can anybody confirm this interpretation, and give any thoughts on whether it should be simplified?