buildingSMART Forums

The interaction between buildingSMART and ISO/CEN standardisation

With the evolution of IFC towards more continuous integration, one might wonder how ISO publication will have to evolve. When an ISO standard is ready for publication, there is a specific roadmap to follow, with a series of enquiries and possible comments. With the liaison between ISO/TC 59/SC 13 (where the ISO is published) and CEN/TC 442 (where the EN ISO version is adopted via Vienna Agreement) a published ISO version of IFC becomes a European standard as well and, automatically, a national standard throughout most EU countries.

This can be a good thing (trustworthiness) but also a dangerous thing (defining the content of a standard from outside the actual standardisation activity).

I understand this, as this is where the experts are to develop this work. However, when the time is right to go to publication, the typical interaction of national mirror committees and working groups providing feedback is mostly skipped. At the time the standard is ready for ISO, there is no room anymore for any serious comments, not on editorial level and certainly not on technical level. Rejecting the standard at that time would also be a huge waste of efforts. Accepting it automatically practically circumvents most of the standardisation workflow.

There is no clear solution but to try to make IFC as good as it can be. So I strongly urge all people involved to maximise the communication across these liaisons and ensure that all committees involved are addressed as early as possible, to avoid conflicts later on.

You have to remember that the time for standards publication is long… and the time to get to a review of such as standard is even longer (about 5 years). This is completely the opposite of an approach of continuous integration.

However, I also see an opportunity with a more lean and focused new generation of e.g. IFC5 (or later?) to have a more stable kernel and resources layer and having the actual content-related aspects, such as propertysets more independent (and maybe even outside of the standard?).

Any thoughts?

What do you mean by “continuous integration”. Surely not software speaking, are you??

@stefkeB I think if you read the Technical Roadmap and listen to Léon’s presentations, you will get a better sense of how this could work.

The main idea is that the core/interoperability layer of “IFC5” would be compact, yet robust and flexible, and the product submitted as an ISO standard, along with specifications for extending the schema via modules. That way, the core/interoperability layer is a long term support product, like the previous IFC2x series (including IFC2x2, 2x3, and 2x4 (IFC4), but the modules on top of that can be more rapidly developed and revised, as needed. This includes documentation as much as functionality. The pursuit of submitting modules to ISO would be possible, but not necessary. It could be that a module is so well developed that its user base decides an ISO “blessing” is desired. Again, it could go through the process independent of the core IFC ISO standard.

@Hans_Lammerts When @stefkeB talks about “continuous integration”, he is referring to the current Technical Roadmap proposal that the IFC schema, modules, and documentation would be set up as a code repository (via GitHub) allowing for tools and workflows that enable editing at many different levels and then the automatic generation of products (schema documentation as EXPRESS, XSD, RDF, etc, HTML documents, I/O libraries as C#, C++, etc, etc.) when changes/pull requests have been reviewed and integrated. This would especially be helpful in keeping the HTML documentation current and enable the rapid development and deployment of modules, especially those at the classification/pset layer as described in the Technical Roadmap.

1 Like

Thank you. It was the presentation by @berlotti that triggered my question. I think having a core package with Long term support is actually ideal to submit to ISO whereas the more thematic modules can evolve quicker, with full industry involvement, but don’t necessarily have to go through full standardization.

1 Like

Hi Stefan

Complete agree. I think that both parts should consider more collaboration in early stages.

Refereed to IFC5, wich I personally consider that will be the “essential brick” fir BIM in the XXI century, maybe the best will be to have a BIG BRAINSTORMIG meeting involving all the parts, including other that usually dont appear until it’s too late (governments, big construction companies, small offices, manufacturers, material developers, etc).

Maybe this COVID RESET TIME is the best moment to do it.

Javier Alonso Madrid

Is this a return the the IFC Platform Guarantee concept that served us well through IFC2, IFC2x, IFC2x2 and IFC2x3 ?