Talk:ODB++

Need help

Please help by adding info about ODB++. In particular, does anyone know what ODB stands for? DB is database I guess. Is O objects? Woz2 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ODB originally stood for Open Database. It think Mentor no longer uses it that way. (It is quite ironic, as it is neither open nor a database.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.188.40 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I Googled that phrase and found a ref. Adding it now...Woz2 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK self nomination

EDA companies

Dear Woz, If you want to include a list of companies that support ODB++ in and/or out, please list them all, not just a few or one in each category. Why one and not another? This smells of commercial bias. Furthermore, it does not contribute to understanding ODB++, it just opens controversy. If one wants to know of XYZ supports ODB++, one should check with XYZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back your third edit and tagged it as vandalism using the WP:3RR rule. If you want to add missing companies, that is fine. Woz2 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. I cannot provide a complete list. This is not a reason to have a partial list with commercial companies. This is biased, or may be biased. The article is fair without it, biased with it. But this is not the main point. The section does not contribute anything to understanding ODB++. It does not prove use of ODB++ in the market either, nor about its qualities and deficiencies. The article is IMHO better wihtout it. With it, you will always be suspected of a hidden commercial agenda. The articles about other formats in PCB, or elsewhere, also are without such lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC) One other thing. I feel that the accusation of vandalism is not fair. I feel I improve the article by making it more objective. You may be of another opinion, but this is what I think. Furthermore, I carefully argue my edit. Surely this is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR Woz2 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before throwing the rule book at me, could you please answer my arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important that you read the rule WP:3RR and stop vandalizing. Otherwise you'll be banned, which would be very unfortunate. Woz2 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woz. I read this. However, I deny I am vandalizing. Vandalizing is wrecking for no purpose. I feel the article is better without the list. As a compromize, I wrote something that makes it clear that ODB++ is not something only relevant to Mentor, without throwing in commercial publicity. I am not vandalizing. I object to what you write, at least in a Wikipedia context. What should I do? Just let it pass because you call it vandalism? Again, instead of throwing the rulebook at me, and accusing me of vandalism - which is an insult - please answer my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to not only read the article but act accordingly. You also need to read how wikipedia works before repeatedly violating its rules because you don't know how to resolve an issue. Woz2 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. However, this does not answer my remarks. I am trying to discuss the issue, but you do not respond, but just re-add what I view as publicity. User talk:203.117.10.66 Dear Woz1. You keep re-adding what I view as publicity, without addressing my arguments. Furthermore, you accuse me of vandalism. (And I suspect you mobilized friends to mess up my edits. I apologize if I am wrong. I suggest you read the section What is not vandalism and Conflict resolution, before you remove my edit. You may not like my edit, but it is definitely neutral, and in no way derogatory to ODB++(X). I suggest we start from that. There is enough non-controversial work to improve this article. E.g. it misses a link to the spec. User talk:203.117.10.66

If you'll restore the section, I'll be happy to explain why it is valuable and valid.Woz2 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you're curious, your accusation of "mobilized friends to mess up my edits." is absolutely false.Woz2 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woz, I wrote this suspicion when I was upset, I apologize. User talk:203.117.10.66

Deep breath... Here's why it's valuable and valid to have a list of companies that support OBD++

* It shows the breadth of support

* It saves people Googling around. The value of wikipedia over google is (hopefully expert) humans have curated the info.

* Although it isn't complete, perfection isn't a requirement for article. They are never 'finished' and additions can be made any time

*It is unbiased because it is the union of two lists (included in the reference) from two competitors talking about their competitors. The EDA industry runs on this typ of "co-opetition" of standardizing formats (e.g. Touchstone) and languages (SPICE, VHDL, Verilog,..) and competing on performance.

* There is no prohibition to mentioning and listing companies and products if appropriate: Look at Cadence Design Systems, Mentor Graphics, Zuken, List of EDA companies, Computational electromagnetics#Software

Important note It is very important that you read the rule WP:3RR. Please discuss here but do not blank my contribution. Let's reach a consensus before changing the section? Woz2 (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woz, Wikipedia is an encyplodia, not a forum. Showing a list of companies that have ODB++ implementation is important in promoting ODB++ over the IPC-2581 standard, but is not part of en encyclopedia. A partial list, however made, is not neutral. The neutrality of the article must be above suspicion. This one is still full of advocacy. The article should clarify what ODB++ is, as such I do not understand why you removed my link to the spec. The spec is more important than subjective and commercial talk about how great ODB++ is. Facts please, not promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next step is to get a third party opinion per WP:DR

Added [WP:O3]] Disputed versions are here and here.Woz2 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion

Hello! I'm here in response to the wp:3o request, to offer a 3rd opinion. I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I've only barely heard of EDA, and haven't heard of ODB++ at all.

First, I would like to welcome the IP Editor to Wikipedia. As you know, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, but I would encourage you to create one. It does make communication with other editors easier. You seem to have a good start on the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source, and you'll become more familiar with particular policies over time. Your edits were plainly not vandalism and I'm sorry that you were accused of that, but you were violating policy on edit warring, which I think you already know by now. I hope you continue to contribute.

Woz2, thank you for your contributions to the article. I pretty much agree with you regarding content, which I will address in a moment. I know this has already been addressed, but please be careful not to wp:bite the newbies. Also, it takes two to have an edit war, even if it's the other editor who crosses wp:3rr first.

It is my opinion that listing companies that support OBD++ is relevant to the article, and is not promotion of any company if done in a neutral way. I understand the IP editor's point about listing some and not others being inherently unfair, but no one is suggesting that we exclude a company from the list, and if we refused to make lists unless they were known to be 100% complete that would severely hamper our efforts here. I think it is reasonable to make the list as complete as we can at the time, and let it be added to later.

I believe that the list is relevant to the article, particularly because the criticism section right below it addresses whether ODB++ is open for other companies to use. The list seems to show that some other companies do indeed use ODB++. This kind of factual presentation should be encouraged rather than simply quoting statements from arguing factions. We also avoid weasel words in statements like "a few other companies also use ODB++". The list solves that problem.

I also found this article, Comparison of eda software, which is a rather extensive list that includes this information and much more. It seems to me that this kind of information would be extremely useful to someone who was trying to understand not just the technical specifications of ODB++, but what dimensions it has taken in the marketplace, what tools could be gotten that use this particular format, etc.

I would suggest placing a statement saying that the Comparison of eda software article shows which EDA products use this format. This would make the article clean, link to the information in a format that's already pretty thorough and professional, and keep us from having 2 lists to maintain with duplicate information. Also, the 2 lists don't seem to match up perfectly, so that is worth looking at. (Only a cursory comparison, and maybe the lists are referring to the same products by different names in some cases. I don't know.) If you choose to keep the list in this article, I would at least suggest breaking it up into a bulleted list. The paragraph is cumbersome to read in my opinion.

I hope this helps, and thank you both for putting the edit war down and seeking some form of dispute resolution. I'll be watching the article and this page for your thoughts. Mishlai (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First of all let me apologize once again as I did on my talk page for mixing up 3rr blocking and vandalism. That was a mistake. I let myself become irritated that someone was deleting contributions as I was adding them. (Stay cool is good advice :-)) I'd be happy to work in a link to Comparison of eda software and any other additions into the article when it becomes unblocked. What is the next step? Woz2 (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The next step is we wait for the IP Editor to respond, and then we work together to reach a consensus. Once that is reached the article will be updated with the consensus content. Mishlai (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Good night (if it is night on your side of the planet). Woz2 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mishlai's suggestion is excellent. Let us put ODB++ support in the Comparison of eda software and make peace. I apologize if I have been impolite during this discussion. --203.117.10.66 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specification

Does somebody have a spec of ODB++ and ODB++(X)? This would be more useful than flyers from Mentor praising the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.10.66 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing the article itself, not a general forum. If you want to contribute, I suggest you Google for the spec and add the link the the article.

Sorry that I did not make my intention clear. I propose to add a link to the specification. I did Google it, but I did not find it. Especially for ODB++(X) it seems hard to find anything.User talk:203.117.10.66

I see. The best ref for ODB++(X) is the IPC link already ref'd. The docs are only available to bona fide committee members. The ODB++ spec is bottom right "ODB++ Format Request" of the page already refered to http://www.mentor.com/products/pcb-system-design/odb-data-exchange. Again the docs are only available to bona fide industry participants.Woz2 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

You are both edit warring. Rather than block both of you, I've protected the article until you hash things out here. I suggest asking for input from the relevant Wikiproject, or at [[WP:3O]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I respectfully ask that you look at the recent chronology one more time. I suggested a third-party , the other person blanked my contribution again.Woz2 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you've been doing something similar; you disagree with them, falsely accuse them of vandalism, and then revert to your version too. I see another admin blocked the IP, I'm discussing that disparity with him now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on to someone else on my user talk page the blocking vs vandalism was a misunderstanding on my part and if you look at the chronology, have been acting on my new understanding. I have added a WP:3O Woz2 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I think outside knowledgeable input is what you two need. If a consensus develops earlier than 3 days, ping me or use {{editprotected}} and we can remove protection early. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I blocked 203.117.10.66 (talk · contribs) at the same time as the protection was applied. I have unblocked him/her to participate in the discussion here. Note that the expectation is that discussions occur and come to a consensus before futher contested edits occur. Kuru (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presently the disputed section is blanked. How can there be a discussion by other people if they can't easily see it?Woz2 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can see it by looking in the history. The last version to include that section is here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an edit war makes no sense. Let a neutral Wikipedian decide, and I will abide by that decision. User talk:203.117.10.66

That's what I suggested on 2011-09-28T12:29:55 but you went ahead and blanked my contribution for the 12th time on 2011-09-28T12:32:09 in any caseWoz2 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you removed my contribution umpteen times as well (and accused me of vandalism and uttered threats in the process). Anyhow, is it not logical that the disputed section is removed pending a resolution of the dispute? --203.117.10.66 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but it's water under the bridge. Let's focus on the article. Mishlai (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now my opinion. Wikipedia should be strictly factual and neutral. It is not to be used to advocate or promote something. Its neutrality must be above suspicion. I feel too many references are really commercial promotion and flyers advocating ODB++. The aim of our friend Woz2 seems to be more to demontstrate the wide support for ODB++ rather than to explain what it is. This is not a forum to promote ODB++ over IPC-2581 or good old Gerber for that matter. The partial list of implementations does not contribute to the understanding of ODB++ and serves only to advocate the format. It is unfair to companies that are not listed. The article and references is long on promotion but short on facts about ODB++. No link to the specification, no explanation of structure or content. I would support edits by our friend Woz2, or whoever, that would address that weakness. I cannot do it myself, I lack the detailed knowledge needed to do this well. User talk:203.117.10.66 —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]