IVS-178 - VER000

[Ghesselink]

Simplified version of #314

We concluded that the concept template does not provide enough context to set constraints on the sequence of given statements. The most simple version to colour blocks green should suffice.

[civilx64]

The conversion-based unit for .DEGREE. was triggering a schema error so I removed it from the test files in ad84815. Small typo fix required in the .feature file and then we are good for UAT.

[aothms]

and maintain a comprehensive history of those changes.

Sorry, late to the party, but @evandroAlfieri sorry for being pedantic. But we don't actually maintain a comprehensive history. With IfcOwnerHistory only the last state from a building element is recorded, you just have some information on when and by whom it is changed. If the element is deleted, then it's gone from the model without a trace of history. I would not call this "a comprehensive history of those changes".

[Ghesselink]

We can still modify it. What about

The rule verifies the presence of IFC entities used to track changes to building data over time, providing information on the latest modifications, including when and by whom they were made.

[aothms]

I think it can be summarized by "provenance information", but I'm not sure whether it's a well-understood word.

The rule verifies the presence of IFC entities to attach provenance information to objects

Or staying more close to the docs on IfcOwnerHistory

The rule verifies the presence of IFC entities to capture the authoring application and user pertaining to associated objects

[Ghesselink]

but I'm not sure whether it's a well-understood word.

Well, I had to look it up myself :) @civilx64 ,as our only native English speaker of the team, what do you think?

I would opt for the second sentence; it's clear, and consistency between the docs and validation service is also nice.