What makes a "full" 'building information modeling package' compared to a "compatible" one? This seems like a pretty strange distinction to me. In fact, what makes a "Building information modeling package" at all, anyway? IFC compatability? If so perhaps we should rename the template to 'IFC comptible packages'....

As far as I can see, the term 'Building information modelling' is so broadly applied that to distinguish one package from another based on it, seems pretty absurd. Miscreant 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but that's life at the moment in BIM. I would say that IFC compatibility is what is now being termed OpenBIM because basically any CAD package which allows you to add data about the objects is building *information* modelling/management software.--duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)