Cardinality question about ids

[aothms]

Good point.

We specifically discussed that wouldn't want to support cases like "For wall I need exactly two properties" even if the schema would allow that (hence the table).

This is first and foremost in the required category.

There's several questions here I guess:

• Should the docs be updated?
  • State maxOccurs can be "1 or unbounded" for the required case (or leave it empty)? To disambiguate requiring exactly one or at least one?
  • Should the statement "they do not have any meaning" be refined? What does it mean: Is it allowed? Implementation dependent?
• Is it ever meaningful to require an upperbound other than zero (because the docs seem to say "no" and I can live with that answer). In that case maybe it's better to require maxOccurs to be set to unbounded as the table suggests.

My take on this is: change the sentence to "other permutations are currently not allowed" and update the sample to unbounded.

[NickNisbet]

What does it mean if there are several Type metrics? In the application? In the requirements? Several property metrics for the same property? Several classification metrics? Where is this explained? Sent whilst away from my desk. Regards, Nick. Nicholas Nisbet FRSA MA(Cantab) DipArch(UNL) Fellow: Royal Society of Arts Fellow: buildingSMART International & UKI Chapter Director: AEC3 UK Ltd Web: http://www.aec3.com<http://www.aec3.com/> E-mail: ***@***.******@***.***> Direct: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Registered Address: 46 St Margaret's Grove, Great Kingshill, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP15 6HP, UK Vice-Chair: buildingSMART UK Chapter Convenor: buildingSMART Regulatory Room ********** Confidentiality Notice **********. This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). This e-mail may contain confidential information and/or information protected by intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it. On 20 Mar 2023, at 08:42, Thomas Krijnen ***@***.***> wrote:  Good point. We specifically discussed that wouldn't want to support cases like "For wall I need exactly two properties" even if the schema would allow that (hence the table). This is first and foremost in the required category. There's several questions here I guess: * Should the docs be updated? * State maxOccurs can be "1 or unbounded" for the required case (or leave it empty)? To disambiguate requiring exactly one or at least one? * Should the statement "they do not have any meaning" be refined? What does it mean: Is it allowed? Implementation dependent? * Is it ever meaningful to require an upperbound other than zero (because the docs seem to say "no" and I can live with that answer). In that case maybe it's better to require maxOccurs to be set to unbounded as the table suggests. My take on this is: change the sentence to "other permutations are currently not allowed" and update the sample to unbounded. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#137 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYIIJJ6MMWJ6XEJX2IIKOTW5AJ67ANCNFSM6AAAAAAWALJG3E>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[CBenghi]

I support @aothms view on this.
See PR #147 if agreeable.

[CBenghi]

#147 has been merged. This issue can be closed.

[pjanck]

The examples weren't updated, thus making them invalid (compare 17f3b66 with point 2 above). I request to reopen the issue / should I open a new one?

[berlotti]

We prefer you fix the examples and create a pull request

[CBenghi]

@berlotti and @pjanck,
As part of the auditing tool I'm writing, I'll take care of creating a new PR soon with the fixes for the Development files.
I'll need to liaise with @Moult for the testcases because they are programmatically generated outside of this repository.