X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=UQ4DH6GNo+Lpn8FGfJ9HT3NPSxrXfM/mOx1aXcVHRiE=; b=U38qbvJ6Pl/8Q3agI7JwsBFkfIMb6IwbsWVqaFeWmXopw8FVdDWhfNOGeikoFxFZiU pSLHkTjkIvzl1uTgcRbgIT9ZLN+uYdwmZiwLWSEZ6DlifvuUMvn3U6ajwO76DEesbLZw SHqxJ2AZ5hbOeyfzIqAqJTdCQwsAYgJdiN9n6f7D6AYU5wARArrYOUy6XLrYC3UZ6ZQb chOcm5RqkIPCw9caEBnA+Zxg4PBlg0ZdjvmA5Aj0ED3Xkx4Ee38kBox/igFJG9P6S/Cr iJ24hKBkJ9pDFyIJRhGtEZxEMM3Cn6qzUVKO7q36f8c6X4ZWHzNL6daqxnoZBeI5Uq8M kGtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.41.73 with SMTP id d9mr8461279oel.27.1450736501966; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:21:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151221203331.20837.qmail@stuge.se> References: <20151221030451 DOT 02399163eb3e40f21c622c41 AT gmail DOT com> <20151221203331 DOT 20837 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Proposing a New Hierarchical Data Structure? From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA User Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cba48dccf8305276fe98f Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --089e013cba48dccf8305276fe98f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Unless anyone can present decent augments as to why its approach is fundamentally different, or flawed, I think it would be silly to ignore (whilst trying to replicate) the _MANY_ man years of design effort captured in STEP AP210 and related standards. Ultimately, the complexity and size of that data model is because it aims to capture an entire design life cycle, taking into account all the nuances and aspects of an incredibly wide scope and representing it in a way that has a defined semantic interpretation. This is useful, reusable, transferable data which in many ways stands alone from the tools manipulating it. AP210 is, granted, a horribly large intractible monster, but I strongly suspect unless your new design very deliberately chooses a narrower scope, and makes more assumptions, it will grow to be similarly complex. None of us have the resources to reproduce that work. I would also guess that we lack the resources to understand and implement all aspects of it - but that doesn't mean it isn't useful or valuable. It would be my suggestion that any future new file formats / internal data models would be well served by studying, understanding and sub-setting concepts and relationships defined within the AP210 standard scope, in the same way that 3D cad kennels appear to typically structure themselves around datastructures and models in sympathy with representations used in their particular STEP standards. If there is a concept you need to model - that is covered by some STEP standard, I'd say you should need a really good reason to deviate from the model these guys have come up with. It is unlikely that we are smarter than the team of domain and data modelling experts who got to the conclusion they did. The main assessment we need to make is "are we trying to solve a sufficiently similar problem". If there are multiple ways of modeling or representing something - pick the STEP way unless there is an amazing reason for doing otherwise. Pushing and adopting AP210, for me, is the single most prudent, future proof, and worthwhile thing we as open source developers (or ex-develpers), (or armchair designers) can do for the electronics profession and industry. We despirately need interchange and portable data, just as 3D cad needed it when the STEP standard was begun. AP210 exists, and is non proprietary. Embrace it. Embrace the concepts and models it uses, even if we still start with our own file formats and internal data structures. Best regards, Peter Clifton On 21 Dec 2015 20:41, "Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" wrote: > Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] > wrote: > > Until you nail down your foundation it wont do you any good to start > > off building on it. > > I disagree. It's possible and good to start at arbitrary levels of > abstraction and work in both directions. > > But what works for you works for you. :) Please help with describing > the objects. > > > //Peter > --089e013cba48dccf8305276fe98f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unless anyone can present decent augments as to why its appr= oach is fundamentally different,=C2=A0 or flawed, I think it would be silly= to ignore (whilst trying to replicate) the _MANY_ man years of design effo= rt captured in STEP AP210 and related standards.

Ultimately, the complexity and size of that data model is be= cause it aims to capture an entire design life cycle, taking into account a= ll the nuances and aspects of an incredibly wide scope and representing it = in a way that has a defined semantic interpretation. This is useful, reusab= le, transferable data which in many ways stands alone from the tools manipu= lating it.

AP210 is, granted, a horribly large intractible monster, but= I strongly suspect unless your new design very deliberately chooses a narr= ower scope, and makes more assumptions, it will grow to be similarly comple= x. None of us have the resources to reproduce that work. I would also guess= that we lack the resources to understand and implement all aspects of it -= but that doesn't mean it isn't useful or valuable.

It would be my suggestion that any future new file formats /= internal data models would be well served by studying, understanding and s= ub-setting concepts and relationships defined within the AP210 standard sco= pe,=C2=A0 in the same way that 3D cad kennels appear to typically structure= themselves around datastructures and models in sympathy with representatio= ns used in their particular STEP standards.

If there is a concept you need to model - that is covered by= some STEP standard, I'd say you should need a really good reason to de= viate from the model these guys have come up with. It is unlikely that we a= re smarter than the team of domain and data modelling experts who got to th= e conclusion they did. The main assessment we need to make is "are we = trying to solve a sufficiently similar problem".

If there are multiple ways of modeling or representing somet= hing - pick the STEP way unless there is an amazing reason for doing otherw= ise.

Pushing and adopting AP210, for me, is the single most prude= nt, future proof, and worthwhile thing we as open source developers (or ex-= develpers), (or armchair designers) can do for the electronics profession a= nd industry.

We despirately need interchange and portable data, just as 3= D cad needed it when the STEP standard was begun. AP210 exists, and is non = proprietary. Embrace it.

Embrace the concepts and models it uses, even if we still st= art with our own file formats and internal data structures.

Best regards,

Peter Clifton

On 21 Dec 2015 20:41, "Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Until you nail down your foundation it wont do you any good to start > off building on it.

I disagree. It's possible and good to start at arbitrary levels of
abstraction and work in both directions.

But what works for you works for you. :) Please help with describing
the objects.

//Peter

--089e013cba48dccf8305276fe98f--