[Discuss] [Open Manufacturing] Re: Open Source Hardware Documentation Jam, New York City, April 26-28

Catarina Mota catarina at openmaterials.org
Thu Mar 7 20:48:33 UTC 2013

Excellent! We're collecting links and info about all existing efforts
regarding documentation and will bundle them together in a format
accessible to everyone - probably a list with brief descriptions and links.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Catarina Mota
> <catarina at openmaterials.org> wrote:
> > Great, link please?
> Here's one about the skdb format:
> http://gnusha.org/skdb/package_spec.html
> http://gnusha.org/skdb/
> The biggest hold-ups for this were two-fold:
> 1) not enough people have opted to review it, suggesting edge cases,
> proposing alternatives, etc. I think perhaps the best reviewer was
> Smári McCarthy, because he went off to instead build tangiblebit since
> he disliked python a great deal... and then he stopped working on
> that. This was one step ahead of "use dpkg for everything!" and it
> seemed to work, at least a little.
> 2) CAD integration, which, in retrospect, is a big project to chew
> off. I ended up with piles of code for nurbs manipulation that doesn't
> work, and then lots of opencascade junk laying around. Thankfully, the
> brlcad crew has been working very hard with the STEP format lately
> through Step Code Library (an ISO 10303-2xx implementation) and also
> on their nurbs support. So that's nice progress..
> The advantage of this is that there is code available in git
> repositories. I wouldn't mind scrapping it, if there was a better
> alternative.
> >> Open source hardware packaging formats like tangiblebit, skdb, mcad
> (which
> >> had a slight packaging aspect, although that wasn't the original goal),
> >> thingdoc, thingscrap, thingzip, cern's repository format, that
> >> thing/javascript/repo mirror format, and a long list of others have a
> >> suspicious absence in any of these email threads and it is perplexing.
> >> Naturally, these formats aren't complete solutions and still need
> review and
> >> more contributors, but either propose an alternative (even a proof of
> >> concept) or submit patches... right? what's the hold up?
> >
> > Can you share a document with us with a list and links to everything you
> > have (or know of) so we can bring those into the discussion?
> Here are some links to some email threads all the way back to 2008
> discussing hardware packaging formats:
> http://heybryan.org/om.html which were collected from
> https://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing
> as for individual projects:
> tangiblebit - http://diyhpl.us/cgit/tangiblebit
> thingdoc - https://github.com/josefprusa/ThingDoc
> thingzip - http://spec.makerbot.com/ (which seems to be down, I guess
> they aren't interested in maintaining it)
> skdb - http://gnusha.org/skdb and
> http://gnusha.org/skdb/package_spec.html
> https://github.com/kanzure/skdb
> thingscrap output format - https://github.com/grevaillot/thingscrap
> cern - http://www.ohwr.org/projects/bpm-dbe/repository (oops, i was
> wrong, they have no specification document)
> I don't remember the other urls.
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/f6b4fe81/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list