Allan -
You wrote:
> when you have a dedicated group
> of people really look at something for wider industry adoption - guess what?
> The process works and you end up with a better answer!
Of course, I agree.
> I would challenge Eichel to donate ODB++ to the IPC like
> Mitron did with GenCAD two years ago.
I believe Valor got the impression that such a donation would be unwelcome, and thus the standard would likely languish. I'm not in a position to judge what has been said and what people's motives were, since I was not present. Perhaps some time has passed, and it is time for the IPC and Valor to again talk about ODB++ as a standard.
But why should Valor donate ODB++ to the IPC, if the voice from the IPC is that GenCAM is the IPC's preferred vehicle for fabrication, not ODB++?
At PCB Design East, I laid out the following roles for the standards we are currently discussing:
- GenCAM: Input into CIM systems.
- EDIF: Input to Fabrication CAM systems; transfer of Designer intent to Manufacturing organizations (and to other Design organizations).
- ODB++: Input to Fabrication CAM systems (although probably a transitory input for the reasons given.)
I stand by this analysis, with the elaboration that GenCAM will probably be a popular input to ICT systems.
> yes, GenCAM can replace Gerber.
As an input to photoplotter equipment? No, GenCAM can not replace Gerber.
As an input to CAM systems, GenCAM, with work, could technically replace Gerber, but it won't, as it is third in line behind EDIF and ODB++.
The consensus of CAM companies (well, of Guy Alon at Orbotech and me, at least) is that by the end of the year 2000, at least 50% of all Fabrication will still be based on Gerber data. That means at that time, Gerber will still be the number one format. The question is what will be number two? Right now, number two is either DPF or CWK/GWK. ODB++ has a shot at being number two in 2000. If it is under the aegis of a standards body, it has a shot at growing to number one. If it is not under the aegis of a standards body, I expect ODB++ to already be in decline by the end of 2000.
While they recognize the challenges involved, some large manufacturers have articulated a strong desire for a single format. Taka Shioya of Solectron says, "one format is best." Dana Korf at Hadco feels that the solution is a next-generation format that is a follow-on to all of the discussed formats. He calls this format "EDIF 5," and sees it as a compendium of the good features of EDIF, GenCAM, and ODB++. It is disappointing to me, but I suspect Dana is right: we may be one standards generation away from a universal electronics manufacturing data format.
The customers will choose, and we suppliers will do what they want. If customers subscribe to Dana's approach, we will gladly do as they demand.
I am still unsatisfied by the answers to this topic, including my own answers. I would like to hear what others have to say on this topic.
- Erik
Erik Nilsson
GraphiCode, Inc.
6608 216th St. SW
Suite 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Phone: (425) 672-1980
Fax: (425) 672-2705
[log in to unmask]
http://www.graphicode.com
################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TechNet
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################
|
