# Talk:ODB++

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)

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

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) 

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)
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) 

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

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)
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) 

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)
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)
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)
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)
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) 

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)


### 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)

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)
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)
Very good. Good night (if it is night on your side of the planet). Woz2 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
I just happened to notice this before retiring for the evening.  Page is now unprotected, thanks to Mishlai for stepping in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Floquenbeam, you seem like a very reasonable and friendly admin.  Woz2 and IP Editor, if one of you would like to propose how to word the statement and link we can either do that here and hammer it out, or one of you can go ahead and make the first edit and we can go from there.Mishlai (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Done!Woz2 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed there were a few style edits made in between the unlock and the restore. I'll manually work those back in as best I can.Woz2 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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) 

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)

And guess who is the judge if you are "bona fine"? Mentor...I do not know if this is still the case, but there were times when you were bona fide if you paid 10k$, but not otherwise. Actually, this is the ptoblem, there is no commitment from Mentor to make the current or future versions of the spec public. They want to use it as a competitive weapon.  The IPC or Gerber spec can simply be downloaded.  I know, this is irresponsible, if anon bona fine persone would get his hand on the spec, what horrors couldnt happen? As  for ODB++X, where is the spec? Mentor is dragging its feet for years about this, because they would publish this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.100.38 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC) 

I hear what you are saying. I think the point you are making is covered in the article (Criticism... section:  the reference to proprietary standards and vendor lock-in and by pointing out the difficulty in accessing the spec). BTW, this talk page is for discussing the article itself, not a general forum to debate Mentor's business practices. Let me respectfully suggest you raise that topic elsewhere, for example http://www.edaboard.com/ Woz2 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I hope you don't think I'm "throwing the rule book at you" but may I suggest you read WP:SOAP and WP:PEACOCK? Woz2 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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:3OWoz2 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
That may be, but it's water under the bridge.  Let's focus on the article.  Mishlai (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Water under the bridge, indeed. But since you ask, no, it isn't wikipedia rules to remove a section under dispute. I restored twice, you deleted three times. You crossed the WP:3RR boundary first.Woz2 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I recommend that in future if you want to dispute an article or section you place a tag on it, but leave it in place. The tag directs readers (who are often potential contributors also) to the talk page. If you blank the section, very few people would think to look at the talk page. You can see an example of a tag in use over at Comparison of EDA software hth.Woz2 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
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). 

I see a couple of things in the article that could stand to be removed and/or changed.  One is "Mentor's fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders (and hence to compete against other vendors) is somewhat in conflict with its claim that..."  This portion of the sentence is not supported by the reference.  It may be true, it may logically follow, etc., but this is original research unless there is a reliable source stating that the claims made are in conflict with Mentor's responsibility to shareholders.  It is not inherently obvious to me that opening a format to competitors is a disadvantage to a company, by the way.  Mentor may benefit by having the industry adopt their standard. Or not. I have no opinion on the matter, I'm just saying this isn't a fact so obvious to the reader that it does not require support.

I agree. I'll work on that weakness.Woz2 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
How is it now?Woz2 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The most recent edit by IP Editor says "Access to the ODB++ and ODB++(X) specifications seems to be quite restricted."  This reads like his/her personal impression, is vague, and simply links to the web page used to apply for access, which isn't a reliable source for a statement like that.  I'd consider "seems" a weasel word, and "quite restricted" in this case appears to be the editor's opinion, based on the requirements listed on the application site.  If there were an article discussing EDA development that stated that access to the ODB++/(X) specs is very restricted, then that would be something else.  We do not, as editors, get to put our opinions and conclusions into the article, even if they are "true" or True.

I agree. But that bit was removed after the 3rd opinion proposed a compromise. (see above)Woz2 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Content like this can be in the article if it is properly sourced, relevant, not given undue weight, expressed from a neutral point of view, etc.  It cannot stand as is.  I think these lines should be deleted and/or rephrased or provided with a reference that supports them as-is. Anything that we say in the article should be clearly supported by the reference(s).Mishlai (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about the subject matter of this article, but it's clear to me that the article suffers from a reliance on self-serving primary sources. I suggested one secondary source earlier, and it has been used in the article in one place. It could be used more extensively to elucidate the issues about the topic. Other informative, independent, secondary sources exist, such as http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4152301/Camps-eye-CAD-CAM-unity (2000) and http://www.hkpca.org/ptxCms/website/hkpca2/gallery/190b0b79-f0e5-4740-b1c1-aba7360c2a50.pdf (2011) and http://www.apics.org/Resources/Magazine/Past/Nov-Dec2003/key.htm (2003). --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work those in also.Woz2 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
About my sentence "Access to the ODB++ and ODB++(X) specifications seems to be quite restricted.". I agree with the criticism that is a weasel word. However, I do not agree it a subjective impression. I was looking on the Mentor website for the specification, to add some substance to this article. I then came up to the reference. The reference is a direct statement by Mentor that and how they restrict access to the spec. This is a very direct and hard reference to that statement. I am sure you can find "black" copies of the specification on the Web, but this is not the point. I will restore the statement, but not in weasel way.--203.117.10.66 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the way you restored it is good. Mishlai (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many of these references are nothing more than commercial documents from companies promoting their products. The referencing statements may well be true, but are their no more credible references?  This may give the impression of commercial promotion instead of encyclopedic content.--203.117.10.66 (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(see discussion in section above) I'm all in favor of adding ref you find. However, I think the ones that are there add value. The sources are clear and the readers of this type of article are sophisticated.Woz2 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This actually is worse than that.  Many of those references are now 404ing.  This page requires some cleanup to connect the dots again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.123.72 (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC) 

In http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4152298/Which-Data-Transfer-Format-is-Best-for-the-Industry- it says Valor was found in 1992. In http://www.pcbstandards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=595 it dates ODB as 1995, OBD++ as 1997, and OBD++(X) as 2000. All of these dates are long after Gerber (1980's) so I don't know why the adjectives "older" in references to Gerber were removed. Some articles even use the adjective "archaic Gerber format" Thoughts? Woz2 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Woz, Gerber is actually a family of formats. The up-to-date version, RS-274X, was defined in 1998 according to the 'Gerber format' article in Wikipedia. It evolved from previous versions, but this is not the point. So it is about the same age as ODB++. Furthermore, the age is not relevant in this context. Who cares if is older or newer. Relevant is how Gerber compares to ODB++. Gerber format to describe the layer images of PCB's. This is does very well, comparable to ODB++ and other languages. Hence its popularity. It is also all it does. It does not describe the stackup, netlist, etc. This is the crucial difference with ODB++. Simple and more limited is the crucial point. It would make sense to explain this more clearly. I may do this when I have some more time. By the way, you have collected an impressive list of references. Congratulations.--Karloman2 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Thanks! Maybe I should move the Ucamco PDF earlier to highlight the differences... Woz2 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Done! Woz2 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW most of the reference credit goes to Orlady who whipped Google up to a frenzy and got it to disgorge many gems. Woz2 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This article http://pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8107-a-short-history-of-electronic-data-formats claims that ODB++(X) was discontinued in 2008. Can anyone confirm this? Woz2 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Strike that request. The Mentor interview (Coates) confirms it. Woz2 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The recent ODB++ specifications contain the sentence "Download of the ODB++ Specification does not grant a license to develop software interfaces based on the format specification." To get a license, you still need to demonstrate how that will be advantageous to Mentor Graphics. The format is therefore (in my opinion) not truly open.Thiadmer (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Good info, I did not realize this. Wikipedia Open formats states "An open file format ... which can [therefore be] used and implemented by anyone." If one needs to get a license and demonstrate it will be advantageous to Mentor Graphics it is definitely not open at all. I suggest you slightly amend the main article accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karloman2 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a comment from someone working on incorporating the links as references, so I thought I'd move it here so it doesn't get lost in cleanup: --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110705120048/http://pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8103-users-updating-adopting-ipc-data-transfer-spec-