buildingSMART / buildingSMART/IFC4.x-development
Can anyone confirm whether or not reuse of non-rooted entities applies to IfcTaskTime?
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 234
- Forks
- 123
- Avg merge
- 15h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/can-anyone-confirm-whether-or-not-reuse-of-non-rooted-entities-applies-to-ifctasktime/3609
The general consensus is that non-rooted entities may be reused if they are identical for the purposes of optimisation. However, can someone clarify whether this breaks the semantic meaning of an IfcTaskTime, and whether or not an EXPRESS constraint needs to be put in place?
An `IfcTaskTime` is not rooted. However, its semantic meaning is only complete when coupled with an `IfcTask` when the `IfcTaskTime` has a `DurationType` set to `WORKTIME`. In this case, the meaning comes from the `IfcWorkCalendar` which is assigned to the `IfcTask`, not the `IfcTaskTime`.
Therefore, if two identical task times were recycled / optimised to attach to two different `IfcTask` entities with two different `IfcWorkCalendar` associations, applications / viewers will calculate elapsed time incorrectly.
Can anybody confirm this, as well as check if there is a constraint in the schema I have missed?
Contributor guide
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.