Went to a buildingSMART gathering last week, driven by curiosity about the new version of IFC.
The technical director of the local chapter was enlightening us on the developments.
And enlightened us he did, presenting a complete ‘u-turn’ to the approach they promoted up to very recently.
It was refreshing to hear someone in-the-know publically backing away from the utopistic idea of a central database and a single project model.
Disappointing nevertheless as I personally believe in the integrated database.
Phases, stages, uses, disciplines and functions can and should be all pointing to ONE place.
There are and will be limits on size, speed, access but these should not be the drivers, rather the challenges that need to be worked through.
Just as I said previously, at some point of my life there may be numerous medical specialists having an interest in my ‘left ear’ it is still only ‘one’ ear and should stay with me.
As a counter argument, you can say, it is the ‘information’ about the ear we are concerned with, it can sit in hundreds of different places, fragmented or coordinated, will not hurt the ear.
Or will it?
Actually, the case of my left ear is not that appropriate for another reason: it already “exists” (thank Goodness) as opposed to being planned for as most buildings in this context are.