Tony, Ian, Dennis, Leo, and the Forum,
Actually, I can not find the original post to this thread, so I will simply assume
that what is said that Tony wrote below is what was originally posted.
Actually, there is a brand spanking new Spec ("Standard") that will be released at
APEX in Anahiem California at the end of this month, that will deal exactly with the
problem of "Standard Libraries" and the associated problems such as "zero degrees of
rotation" for a Component Footprint (in the Libraries).
The Spec is IPC 7351, and there is a related spec which covers a "Neutral CAD
Database Format" for interchanging information contained in these Libraries between
different EDA/CAD Vendors, and that is IPC 2581.
A supposedly complete Library already exists for PAD's which can be downloaded for
free from www.pcblibraries.com , which supposedly already conforms to the relevant
There are actually some current specs that already cover some of the issues related
to "zero degrees of rotation" as it relates to a Pick and Place Machine. (yes, this
again, just what I have been asking for here in the forums for the last few years).
Some of these current industry standards can be found at JEDEC JEP95 for most IC
Packages, although about half of the packages in the proposed IPC 7351 Standard
Library by PCBLibraries.com have rotations that are inconsistant with the current
JEDEC JEP95 "Design Requirements" and "Standard Procedures and Practices" (SPP's)
portions of JEP95 (Section 4).
In addition to the JEDEC JEP95 Standard (which is primarily concerned with
"Registered" and "Standard" Device Outline Drawings), there is a specific Standard
which defines how not only IC's, but additionally resistors, capacitors, and other
devices, are to be packaged in "Tape and Reel" for Pick and Place machines. This
spec is EIA-481, and it has been around since the early 90's, and is currently
entitled ANSI/EIA-481-C 10/03.
There are in fact some contradictions here also between EIA-481with what
PCBLibraries.com has done so far, but effective this morning IPC is looking into
these disgrepencies, and they will be resolved before any "Standard Library" is
actually adopted by IPC.
The whole point here is that there will actually be an international standard that
is going to be released very shortly here that will in fact address this very issue,
and other related issues including the "database problem", and everyone, even
including Altium, will be expected to conform to the standard within a few years.
The ultimate Goal for the IPC Standards would be acceptance not only within the PCB
Design community but also within the Component Manufacturing community, such that
ultimately even Schematic Symbols would be standardized, and all components would
directly map to a specific Industry Standard Schematic Symbol and a Specific
Industry Standard Component Footprint, all freely available from the Component
Manufacturer in a "Neutral CAD Database Format", and that these "Standard Libraries"
would drive all of the Manufacturing Processes, such as Assembly and Testing.
Maybe Altium will be developing some new Library Component Wizards after all, once
the details of the new IPC 7351 and IPC 2581 specs are actually finalized.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Semiconducto rmfg Footprint creation
> On 11:15 AM 7/02/2004, Tony Karavidas said:
> >What does the lack of an industry wide standard for component footprints
> >have to do with Altium? They are but one EDA vendor and there are certainly
> >orders of magnitude more component manufacturers than EDA vendors. The
> >"problems and unfriendliness" are prevalent and unique to each EDA vendor's
> >tool set. Having an interoperable library standard cannot be done in a
> >vacuum, and I don't think Altium can take the lead. They would need to form
> >a consortium of EDA vendors and I think they don't want to play ball
> >together. (It would be nice if the top 4 or 5 could join to develop this XML
> >or whatever based standard.)
> >I also don't think a parts vendor could/would do it. What's in it for them?
> >Why should they throw the resources at it? They will sell their parts
> >regardless...if people need those parts for a certain functionality. If
> >you're thinking "yeah that may be true for single sourced parts, but what
> >about multi sources parts?" then I would say those are nearly commodity
> >items anyway and there's no money in time spent making industry standard
> >libraries for them.
> >It probably needs to be some organization like the IEEE.
> Or users - there is nothing to say that a bunch of committed and competent
> users couldn't form the consortium and start the definition process. What
> would be required is users using all sorts of different CAE programs
> getting together to start the process.
> There would potentially be copyright issues with someone taking the Altium
> libs and converting them to a open exchange format, but users ought to be
> able to export their own libs into a standard form.
> I am sure that many of the DAE systems provide sufficient programable
> access to write appropriate add-ons to allow users to write the
> add-ons. If you had enough add-ons and users using the system the industry
> would eventually follow and have to work together to make it work.
> What would be required?
> 1) Ability to store Sch symbol, including pin attributes, text (including
> justifications, fonts etc), pin swap data ...
> 2) Ability to store PCB footprint, including ...?
> 3) Sim data - probably a number of formats would be required, SPICE,
> EESoft, SABRE and others
> 4) Sig Int data
> 5) 3D data
> 6) comments
> 7) ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *