Let’s change the name for the BIM interoperability file-format;

I am warming to IFC. Have been using it lately and it is getting better...

 Am not quite ready to let BuildingSmart off the hook yet – indeed am preparing to hassle a bit more by voicing my demands on a new (and appropriate) role it should take on within BIM

(and demand relinquishing others that it is holding by default).

That is for the near future.

Today: The unfortunate file-extension: IFC -

IFC  can mean either/both “industry foundation classes” and/or “issued for construction”!

Imagine this conversation:

“Hi Paul, how are you?

....(typical chat)... Can you please forward us your latest IFC model?”

“Hi John... certainly – exactly what IFC are you referring to?..”

It is easy enough to distinguish between the two – if you remember to draw attention to the fact there are two different meanings used regularly.

Almost just as easy to assume one or the other.

Is this ambiguity really necessary?

Let’s change the name for the interoperability file-format;

My suggestions:

MBA – Model Based Aspect (sounds very knowledgable too)

MBF – Model Based Format (clinical and to the point)

IMB – International Model Base (technical and evokes IBM – also the anagram of BIM)

IMF – International Model Format...

Now, if this last one gets confused with the International Monetary Fund, so be it.

And while we are at it, can we get rid of the ‘interoperability’ word?