X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=qk3Ovgr93K9uamK1ii/uBIdnDgJAixsdj8/aYKyICho=; b=Wbrj1AheX5n532N2kKTaBLnDUlimkbkd13NG5kJWX1g7m49bxripM4ml4+TAmIxZlx zeLOpmwwcPPPmrgXA6Wybt3+2w3YMjqMDu0C0G3lDjmRA7sFMGVo3CiQjzMpYn25AJ+g GVZbHCQ1NGzxyyjcmrCHNgdvGbfrjcIa1hv0CFWchl4aSnkh3kZa4CIKL3EJKrJyu7h+ meH+JC5+ESQlKJhfNN3Rv0IqMXWje0pCKbI8L2h2YHKiqMUHW779p8qTWy2DnVM37Jmn SXHuzokB9HiEFwHPttj+KDYvVPtd73ZLHYDWBKDw1r8xnbQbbaunQxo68X9XLDyw55EQ NVvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.97.2 with SMTP id dw2mr12224261oeb.40.1450831475591; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:44:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151221030451 DOT 02399163eb3e40f21c622c41 AT gmail DOT com> <20151221203331 DOT 20837 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <20151222002012 DOT a88d7fe32a9336855eccd1d0 AT gmail DOT com> <201512220412 DOT tBM4CJxb018546 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151222153828 DOT 28d3996c10f3182c5efc780a AT gmail DOT com> <20151222204233 DOT 0ccc392762ac3ee53ed6bad0 AT gmail DOT com> <20151222224041 DOT 45deaf70fe414a8c4cc3888f AT gmail DOT com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:44:35 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Prop ... Structure? (Clearance calculation) From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA User Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 22 December 2015 at 22:02, Peter Clifton wrote: > For design intent, voltage is important - but ideally, specify it in a > more semantic way. > > Aside: I could write voltage=250V with the correct AP210 primitives, > but it would probably take a page worth of boilerplate to define the > SI unit quantities, specify tolerances, define the property of the > object, instancing an instance of the property, mapping it onto the > object owning the property, assigning it a value etc... > I'm mocking STEP and its complexity - this genuinely is an almost fair > representation of how it defines properties... but there is a reason > why they do it this way. (Not entirely sure I know the reason though > ;)). And for amusement - on STEP properties, I found this link: http://www.wikistep.org/index.php/PDM-UG:_Properties_Associated_with_Product_Data That site is a nice resource on some aspects of STEP, and the PDM schema is both interesting, and simultaneously, all the boiler-platey nonsense you get annoyed at having to push out just to complete a valid AP203 or AP214 file with a bit of geometry in it. (You have to give a full grounding and context, including "product information" - to attach the geometry to.. - the geometry definition is a "representation" of the "shape aspect" of the product IIRC - been a while now.)