Too many or too few features in ETIM?
There is continuous discussion on the number of features in ETIM classes. Some people want ETIM to limit the number of features in ETIM classes as much as possible where others want to further expand the number of features. If we would allow for more features in the future we might consider introducing a new element to group features, like basic selection features, BIM, environmental, etc. The argument would be that with the amount of features increasing in ETIM with grouping you could differentiate in a release with only basic features, with specific BIM features added and so on. Please share your opinion with me so I can use it as input for a memo I have to prepare on this for the ETIM TC (Technical Committee)
Marking certain Features in the class as "Basic data" is a very good idea. We have discussed this in the Swedish working groups and they considered the matter important. But we chosed to wait a little bit because the work was considered too extensive at the time.
An additional advantage is that some users want mandatory fields. This could be an "light option" to avoid controlling this to hard.
When selecting these basic data, we should also take the opportunity to review the numbering (order) of the Features in the classes. It should be possible to obtain a document with guidelines for which order the features generally will be presented. (Based on the order that exists in many classes already today).
This should also be done in the long run with the Values, but the Features is far more important to get in a "standard" order.
Join the conversation
|Topic started||23 August 2017 at 16:04|
Share topic via: