Example on double negative about ids

[aothms]

I think this was something we discussed extensively on slack, but we can't view it anymore due to the 90d message history limit 😡

I think the discussion was something like: " not exists( appl -> requirement ) " is indeed potentially problematic. Especially with negations involved and not having a formal underpinning of our schema.

I think that a prohibited specification should have no requirements.

That was one of the solutions discussed and I think the best one.

[CBenghi]

I also doubt that the double negative is what we intended when we discussed the schema.

The intent was to prohibit the existence of some entities, not negate their traits.

I think that a prohibited specification should have no requirements.

[Moult]

The green ticks make sense to me. The spec passes.

A double negative makes a positive.

1. Facet "The name is Waldo": True.
2. Prohibited Facet: False.
3. Prohibited Spec: True.

[arishinsemen]

Please comment each point below. How i understand this test case

1. "Prohibited" specification tag does not affect to applicability (Can't formulate applicability "not IFCWALL")
2. "Prohibited" specification tag is the same to I add "Prohibited" tag to all requirement. Logic rule NOT (A AND B) = (NOT A) OR (NOT B) does not work.
3. Double "Prohibited" (specification and requirement tag) "destroy" both

[CBenghi]

Closed with consensus of the call since the case does not apply to the implementation agreements of the latest schema.