MVD views (and others) are shown as a NIBS responsibility. I assume the intention was to use NBIMS, not NIBS. This should be corrected.

However, MVD is not a NBIMS responsibility. Of course NBIMS input will be welcomed, but MVD is a vendor/IAI responsibility.

The prominence given to BLIS in the text creates an erroneous impression. As in: “As indicated above, NBIMS XE "NBIMS (The NBIMS Committee)" will be adapting processes and tools developed by the BLIS XE "BLIS (Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software)" consortium, buildingSMART XE "buildingSMART" , and IAI XE "IAI (International Alliance for Interoperability)" in order to maintain maximum compatibility with similar developments globally.”

Also, for example:

Page 126, line 30:

"The International Alliance for Interoperability and BLIS XE "BLIS (Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software)" Project are coordinating development of MVD internationally"

BLIS is/was an independent organization of mostly software vendors that implemented IFC version 2.0, almost a decade ago. BLIS initiated several innovations which were quickly accepted by IAI, such as model views and an XML version of IFC. As such BLIS played an important and appreciated roll in the process towards implementation of interoperable software. However, BLIS has not provided coordination of model views since IFC version 2.0, and BLIS has not developed the MVD methodology; instead it had been developed by Jiri Hietanen, the IAI MVD Coordinator. It was fully discussed and approved by the IAI International Technical Management and its support groups. Whereas Jiri had/has strong connections to BLIS, it would be wrong to state any role for BLIS in the MVD development process, except for the historic developments already cited.

Francois Grobler, ITM chair