[cad-linux] Re: OT: Open data formats (continuation of previous thread)
- From: lee.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:18:45 -0700
DWF creates a layer of indirection between our native formats and your
published data, that's the deal.
If I remember correctly, every release of Inventor to date included changes in
the file format. That is not uncharacteristic (and indeed probably necessary)
of software products with steep innovation curves. Improvement requires
change, and we will continue to improve our products aggressively. The native
file formats will continue to change often, I expect.
Published data, on the other hand, is a different thing entirely. A project
archived in DWF format is as invariant as paper, yet electronic. It captures
the documentation of the project while maintaining plausible "ineditability"
(important if you're concerned with litigation). It can be indexed, searched,
plotted and is highly compact. The pattern of bits that make up the format
have been documented, and that documentation (and the code to produce and read
the format) can be archived along side the project. If there are aspects of
the data availability problem unserved by DWF, I'd like to understand them.
Open native formats (or exchange formats, for that matter) is not a problem
addressed by DWF, and one that I'm not overly optimistic about.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey McGrew [mailto:JMcGrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: September 23, 2002 12:23 PM
> To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cad-linux] Re: OT: Open data formats (continuation
> of previous
> thread)
>
>
>
> > Allegory, although interesting, doesn't provide the detached=20
> > perspective I think is necessary in the search for a=20
> > solution. You've indicated assumed drawbacks with ownership=20
> > of a standards by public corporations interested in the=20
> > market -- perhaps because the officers obligation to act in=20
> > the interest of the firm must clash with the interests of the=20
> > firm's customers. I don't believe that's true, but let's=20
> > assume it is.
>
> In a perfect world, you are right: this is not true, for
> corporations =
> would compete on merit alone. The better product would
...snip...
> AutoCAD is for DWG compatibility, and not because it's the
> best package =
> out there. Why would AutoDesk not leverage it's future
> formats in the =
> same way?
>
> Jeffrey McGrew
>
Other related posts:
