MarcelStepien

I think there is a misunderstanding of how applicability can be understood in the contexts of rule checking or property assignment. **As stated in the documentation:** "Applicability: Identifies the subset...

> I think that decision got reversed. @CBenghi may remember exactly where. > > Not sure why you'd want to remove it - Optional applicability provides a useful capability. Here's...

In that case, I propose adding the following remark to the documentation to make it clear: "The applicability filters a subset of elements from the model and produces the input...

However, there is one more issue regarding the applicability in combination of prohibited:  If the applicability works as described in the example, we are heavily limiting the capabilities of...

> Isn't the applicability cardinality intent already clear from the table under '[Cardinality of the applicability entity](https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/ver/1.0.x/Documentation/UserManual/specifications.md#cardinality-of-the-applicability-entity)'? Its ONLY the table that makes it more clear. And my argument is...

> We crossed over. This is probably better as a discussion given 1.0 is shipped and it's by design? > > I agree that it's strange that _required_ and _prohibited_...