The original query was sent by me. Perhaps you have me in your x-list...

To reiterate:
I relayed the fact the while searching for footprint info on a part at
TI.com, I noticed that they produce _native_ footprints and schematic
objects for several other EDA packages. 

Then I noticed that they had a little click-button for suggesting alternate
formats to support with native models.

As a result, I wrote an email to the group suggesting that people speak up
with IC mfgs, since there are quite a few Protel and PCAD (Altium) users out
there, presumably enough that it would be in the interest of IC mfgs to
support them.

I would really hate for my subject (prompting mfg for native support) to
turn into a totally unrelated thread (the idea of a universalist utopian EDA
format) without some treatment of the orignal postulate.

Aside from the promise of the far future, we all still have work to do for
the next several years before anything becomes anything near universal. It's
been talked about and talked about for the last decade, with many of the
same predictions about impending universality...Personally I think it's just
more of that good old smoke and mirrors.

regards,

aj


> -----Original Message-----
> From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:56 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Cc: JaMi Smith
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Semiconducto rmfg Footprint creation
> 
> 
> 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 specs.
> 
> 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.
> 
> JaMi
> 
> 
> ----- 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) ...
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to