Electronics > PCB/EDA/CAD

Open schematic file formats

(1/3) > >>

Robert.Adams:
Hi everyone,

I've been digging around file formats that are used by CAD tools and I found a decade old project from Upverter that had an open JSON format (https://github.com/machinaut/schematic-file-converter) as an intermediary file format while converting between CAD tools. Their forum (https://forum.upverter.com/t/documentation-for-open-json-format/154) shows that project was moved internally by at the latest 2016.

Does anyone know of any other projects like this? Something that converts various CAD tool formats into one standardized format, preferably one that is easily parse-able?

PKTKS:
Yes at least a half dozen ones .. some dead some zoombies...
and some defuncts..

http://sk1project.org

ALIVE: https://sk1project.net/

used to be here http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=uniconvertor

https://sk1project.net/uc2/

seems a defunct zoombie although you can still try some repo on line RPM or DEB
i have an old ancient copy ... packed and installed
still alive...

probably the most successful "UNI" converter (see uniconvertor)
yes the syntax is that.. at least last time I checked

Regarding EDA converters the thing exists since 80s and **NONE**
ZERO ZIPPO  manufc are willing to converter "to" others.. just import.

EDIF is de facto (since 80s)  the EDA format but nobody is interested
in using EDIF...

Best folks kindly to EDIF are from Cadence in which former OrCAD EDIF
support is the best possible among all others..

They exist and PYTHON sweat hearts are very enthusiastic thinking
that some py stuff will obliterate the industry nonsense..

yet to see that.. since 80s... nothing tangible,

Paul  :popcorn:

SiliconWizard:
EDIF would be the de factor standard indeed.

Whereas it's still not widely used, we have to understand why that is so, which is probably going to be a lot more enlightening than trying to devise yet another universal format.

There are standards that are being used though, such as ODB++? It's more for exchanging layout data than schematics though, and it's a proprietary format, but it does contain netlist data IIRC (as opposed to Gerber.) Similarly, there is the IPC-2581 format.

The reason why standards for exchanging layout data have taken off, but not for exchanging schematics are probably rather obvious, but that will at least partially answer the question.

Now feel free to either implement EDIF, or design your own format. The hard part, of course, will be to write converters to and from existing formats, most of which being proprietary, except for KiCad. Oh, and Eagle is not "open" strictly speaking (not quite sure about the licensing), but it's fully documented, it's XML, and it's actually not too badly thought out (talking about the XML Eagle format of course.)

The harder part, too, would be to have EDA vendors adopt this new format.

PKTKS:
oooo  I bet that they won't  (adopt any other format besides their own)

Regarding GERBERS I think that is probably the UNIQUE common
format among them all..

It would be magic if someone could reverse the GERBER format
into the source ... preferably EDIF (as nobody would like to have
their format excluded)

I bet this will not happen any time soon  :scared:
Paul

langwadt:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 03, 2021, 04:42:12 pm ---EDIF would be the de factor standard indeed.

Whereas it's still not widely used, we have to understand why that is so, which is probably going to be a lot more enlightening than trying to devise yet another universal format.

There are standards that are being used though, such as ODB++? It's more for exchanging layout data than schematics though, and it's a proprietary format, but it does contain netlist data IIRC (as opposed to Gerber.) Similarly, there is the IPC-2581 format.

The reason why standards for exchanging layout data have taken off, but not for exchanging schematics are probably rather obvious, but that will at least partially answer the question.

Now feel free to either implement EDIF, or design your own format. The hard part, of course, will be to write converters to and from existing formats, most of which being proprietary, except for KiCad. Oh, and Eagle is not "open" strictly speaking (not quite sure about the licensing), but it's fully documented, it's XML, and it's actually not too badly thought out (talking about the XML Eagle format of course.)

The harder part, too, would be to have EDA vendors adopt this new format.

--- End quote ---

"why don't you implement this new format that makes it easier for you customers to switch to a competitor", that'll be a hard sell

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page