You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When I look at it the most basic IFC5 object is this:
{
def: string,
type: string, name: string (unique),
attributes: [],
children: [],
inherits: []
}
where "name" is the unique identifier for the object like in USD.
In our industry we have so many different types, for example things that have the same properties/relationships but not the same geometry, but do benefit from type grouping by readable name. Although in theory just using unique naming as identifiers looks so logical, I do think our industry will benefit more from a seperation between readable name and identifier.
I have the same pain. My workaround has been to use the "comment" field to include an understandable name. Alternatively, I used an understandable name in the "name" field to make it unique within my own test. The latter is, of course, the wrong way to create unique identifiers, but with long codes alone, I find it challenging (impossible) to figure out the different components and their interrelationships.
In principle, the exchange format does not need to be human-understandable. However, one argument against the STEP format has been that it is difficult to understand. In this respect, IFC5 does not improve the situation. A small enhancement could be the adding of a plain-language name for each object. The downside is that it increases the file size.
When I look at it the most basic IFC5 object is this:
{
def: string,
type: string,
name: string (unique),
attributes: [],
children: [],
inherits: []
}
where "name" is the unique identifier for the object like in USD.
In our industry we have so many different types, for example things that have the same properties/relationships but not the same geometry, but do benefit from type grouping by readable name. Although in theory just using unique naming as identifiers looks so logical, I do think our industry will benefit more from a seperation between readable name and identifier.
{
def: string,
type: string,
globalId: string (unique),
name: string (not unique),
attributes: [],
children: [],
inherits: []
}
For myself I worked around it for now by appending the UUID after the name, but that reduces readablility.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: