knapp@KNAPP.CS.UIUC.EDU (David Knapp) (03/09/88)
If we need a standard interchange format, what is wrong with EDIF except possibly that it-is-too-complicated-and-besides-we-don't-need-all-that? Never mind. A standard that nobody uses, for whatever reason, is about as useful as King Tut's standards for coffin nails. If nobody wants to use EDIF then we must simply sigh and develop something else. I would like to say however that if we do develop a de facto community standard for schematic interchange, we should not shut out the possibility of automatic processing for the schematics. This means two things. 1. screen layout information. That is, positions of symbols, text, and "routing". This would be addressed by dumping bit maps, but: 2. we also should include circuit information so that we don't have to run an extractor on the diagram to recover the circuit topology. This means information like the SPICE deck, which unfortunately does not include any display layout information. That is, if we want to pictorially display it we have to do place-and-route with the screen as carrier. I would also like to put in support for 1. multipage (or multiscreen?) diagrams. In my limited experience it is hard to understand screen displays with a component density of more than about 50 components in an 8.5X11 inch format (your Imagen printer). (it is also hard to lay them out intelligibly). 2. pointers to behavioral models for the components. If I use a black box in my schematic and you want to simulate it you will have a hard time doing it with only an English description of what it does. If I had my druthers I'd ask for a language like VHDL but there is so little software that uses VHDL, I'd settle for Lisp code, or C. Because we will no doubt be unable to agree on a standard form for expressing behaviors, I am afraid this one has to be given a secondary importance. See, for example, EDIF's handling of this issue. David
moto@cad.Berkeley.EDU (EDIF Committee) (03/10/88)
I think you will find that EDIF is indeed oriented to the solution you are
after. The "laundry list" used to generate the EDIF schenatic view was
very similar to the discussion I see here.
1)Multi pages
2) Portable to just about any machine
3) Easy to parse (substitute "BEGIN" for "(" and "END" for ")" to
see what I mean!)
4) Transmits BOTH the graphics (screen display) and connectivity
("spice" netlist) OR just one of the above. Needless to say, if
you don't send something, the file is NOT complete but it at least
conveys the information that you have. For example if ALL you have is
the graphics (screen display on your MAC for example), the EDIF lets
you send JUST that.
Thats to get you interested. At Berkley you need to contact Richard Newton
(I KNOE he has a lot of stuff going on!), otherwise you can contact
the EDIF User Group office and request an "Infrmation Packet"
2222 South Dobson Road
Mesa, AZ 85202
The packet is free.
The Spec. can be purchased from EIA - Standards Sales
2001 Eye St. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20006
Price is $40, $30 for EIA member
companies, and $20 for students.
Mike Waters EDIF CommitteeWIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (Gio Wiederhold) (03/10/88)
There is a more general standardization process for Engineering Information Systems data interchange in progress. A contact is Lt. Nick Naclerio, Wright Patterson AFB, AirForce VHSIC program, Dayton OHio. Gio -------
lalonde@helios.misemi (Terry Lalonde) (03/10/88)
In article <1354@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> moto@cad.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (EDIF Committee) writes: >I think you will find that EDIF is indeed oriented to the solution you are >after. The "laundry list" used to generate the EDIF schenatic view was >very similar to the discussion I see here. I agree. Alot of thought,work,time is embodied in the EDIF.
howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (03/30/88)
In article <8803091159.AA00803@knapp.cs.uiuc.edu> knapp@KNAPP.CS.UIUC.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >If we need a standard interchange format, what is wrong with EDIF except >possibly that it-is-too-complicated-and-besides-we-don't-need-all-that? Exactly. >Never mind. A standard that nobody uses, for whatever reason, is about as >useful as King Tut's standards for coffin nails. If nobody wants to use >EDIF then we must simply sigh and develop something else. True, but if you're saying that no one uses EDIF then you are mistaken. It takes time to develop software, so the results are just starting to become visible, but most major CAD vendors and many "foundries" have been working on EDIF for a year or more. At ICCAD in November, two workstation vendors (Valid and Daisy?) showed total portability of schematics from one vendors platform to the other, using EDIF as the intermediate format. >1. screen layout information. That is, positions of symbols, text, and > "routing". This would be addressed by dumping bit maps, but: >2. we also should include circuit information so that we don't have to > run an extractor on the diagram to recover the circuit topology. This > means information like the SPICE deck, which unfortunately does not > include any display layout information. This is why schematic information (which contains both circuit topology, and screen presentation) is so useful. Mere graphics languages, even great ones like PostScript, will never meet this need. -- Howard A. Landman {oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET
nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess) (03/31/88)
In article <1214@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >At ICCAD in November, two workstation vendors (Valid and Daisy?) showed >total portability of schematics from one vendors platform to the other, >using EDIF as the intermediate format. The two vendors were Valid and HP, and they were using schematic symbols created on TI's internal CAD system, written out in EDIF, and ported to both the Valid and HP systems. Both the Valid and HP reps who were giving the demo mentioned that they had developed the EDIF-in programs independently of each other, which demonstrates something worthwhile about the EDIF specification. --woodstock -- "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?" ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!nate <domainish> : nate@mipos3.intel.com ATT : (408) 765-4309
BHUBER@ECLA.USC.EDU (04/04/88)
Can someone tell me the difference between EDIF and EDI?