IFC Import - Link Vs Open

This topic may have been covered previously but appreciate some official feedback with regards to the dev around these two methods of importing IFCs. "Open" Vs "Link" methods produce very different results.

**File-Open** approach on my testing today (with latest build) created Inplace Families and not containing any of the IFC data. Additionally the IFC (ex Tekla) containing Assemblies (with this method) could not map the IFC Classes to Revit Categories for sub elements.
**Link IFC** option imported Assemblies in addition to the elements within each Assembly separately (ie duplicate geometry). For this particular workflow this although was ok as the Assembly ifcclass could be mapped to a separate category and deleted as required leaving more control over resultant sub element mapping. The geometry created appears to be a system "inplace family" that is non editable ??


The issue names only the File-Open and Link IFC workflows, with Tekla assemblies and Revit category mapping as the comparison points. Start by reproducing both workflows on the latest build and compare the resulting assemblies, geometry, and IFC-class mappings. Done means documenting whether the differences are expected or identifying a specific reproducible import defect.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.