[Discuss] OSHWA creates one database to rule them all ...

[Matt Maier]

It would be impressive to see the community evolve to the point where a
business could trust everyone else to produce hardware projects that could
be profitably remixed :) At the moment the community is still struggling to
consistently replicate single projects profitably.

It will be fascinating to see what standards emerge, especially in
hardware. For example:
https://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-information/US-Metric-Conversion-Table.aspx
http://www.eicac.co.uk/Images%20Compressed/METRIC-HEX-HEAD-BOLT-DIMENSIONS.png
1/8" bolts are slightly over 3mm, but 3/16 is slightly under 5mm. So a
standard might emerge that it's better to use 5mm holes because the hole
will probably work for imperial or metric fasteners without drilling. On
the other hand, if it's a low-slop-tolerance project the standard might be
to not include holes at all, but just a dimple to center a drill because
the maker will have to control the tolerance for whatever fasteners they
end up using. Which assumptions will end up being the best, and how to
document them consistently, will be an ongoing conversation. Like how
electronics kind of standardized on resistor values and voltage levels.

We'll have to have the same thing for open hardware to take off.


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just want to play off the idea of incentives for a little bit. As an
> Open Hardware company, it is enough work to maintain one's own
> documentation in a highly-usable yet technically specific format, while
> maintaining future product development, manufacturing & fulfillment,
> marketing, and other business activities. Coordinating with everyone else
> in the community to produce a commons of designs would be would be an order
> of magnitude more complicated and time consuming -- for a task that does
> not directly produce revenue.
>
> I think that instead of asking projects/companies to do organize
> themselves and do it, someone should start a business that aggregates open
> source documentation in a standardized, browsable format, and then sells
> kits to make newly "remixed" designs. Just a thought...
>
> Go team Open Hardware!
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I dunno. But you probably wouldn't call it "one database to rule them
>> all" and it probably wouldn't have much to do with creating the incentives
>> necessary to get people to even care about packaging in the first place.
>> Both of the things that got this particular thread started.
>>
>> At least a metadata "business card" type thing could clearly specify
>> which packager a project used. You wouldn't have to track someone down on
>> chat or anything.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With a standardized "business card" we could at least get most of the
>>>> projects indexed and searchable even if they remain hosted on different
>>>> platforms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do I call packaging that isn't about the problem of discoverability
>>> so that I don't upset others who share your opinion? Curious to here what
>>> you would consider to be necessary to make it obvious that I am talking
>>> about a different concept.
>>>
>>> - Bryan
>>> http://heybryan.org/
>>> 1 512 203 0507
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140907/0d423b03/attachment.html>