Want to know how to sort it all out?
Get some sticky notes, and a whiteboard. Write down each suggestion on a sticky note, and stick in on the whiteboard. Step back... look at it. Move some notes around. Group them. Get a dry-erase marker, and draw some boxes, circles, and arrows. Throw away the redundant notes. Repeat. Call in a co-worker. Repeat. Call in your boss. Repeat... as necessary. Now, take a picture of the whiteboard. Get a notepad, and summarize what you've found.
Oh... and all those software tools and processes you were thinking about for knowledge capture? None of them work as well as a whiteboard and a pad of sticky notes. That's because none of them let you work unconstrained by artificial structure, and none of them let you step back and take in the whole of your work.
By the way -- the second best tool for knowledge capture is a cocktail napkin.
Applications -- such as word processors, spreadsheets, photo editing software, and CAD programs -- all have one thing in common: They are tools for the creation of copyrighted digital content.
Just like Hollywood has an interest in the ownership of digital content, so do we all. Because we all create it.
If software vendors frustrate interoperability with their native file formats, aren't they essentially expressing a proprietary right in the digital content produced by their software?
Consider an example -- There are literally billions of CAD files in the DWG format created by AutoCAD. Many of these files contain designs for buildings, roads, and products, and many contain maps of everything from local subdivisions to military encampments in Iraq.
The only way to view these files with 100% fidelity is by using software licensed from Autodesk.
No, this is not speculation. Neither PDF, CGM, SVG, nor any other ostensibly open file format is sufficiently robust to completely and accurately represent the data stored in any widely used native CAD file format, much less DWG. Autodesk loudly claims that only their software can reliably access DWG format files.
The Open Design Alliance, a not-for-profit industry consortium, publishes a specification and libraries for its OpenDWG version of this format, and makes these available to approximately 2,000 software vendors around the world. The Alliance's libraries are very good, and getting better -- but they have the limits inherent with reverse-engineering.
Autodesk has resorted to subtle EULA limitations, surreptitious encryption, and even FUD campaigns to try to limit the effectiveness of the Open Design Alliance. If Blizzard v. BnetD (a case now in the appeals court) is not overturned, Autodesk may be able to finally prevent the Open Design Alliance from reverse-engineering the DWG format.
In essence, Autodesk is attempting to impose a "tax" of sorts, by creating a situation where people believe they must use only Autodesk software to reliably access DWG files.
Many DWG files are owned by companies and people that are not even Autodesk licensees. (Consider that many of Autodesk's competitors, to whom Autodesk won't license software, are in buildings for which the plans are in DWG format!)
Governments are major consumers of DWG-based data. In their acquisition regulations, they often specify "unlimited rights" in this data. Which means they have the complete and total right to exploit and use the data in any way they see fit. Except... of course... that they can't do this, if they, or their citizens, must pay a perpetual tax to Autodesk.
Autodesk is not the only company that behaves in this way, but the impact of their actions on society is larger than most all, except Microsoft.
Policies such as the one undertaken by Norway give some hope that there are people out there who understand the question of who owns their data is critically important.
There's no need to develop a special open format for CAD for the Norwegian market.
The OpenDWG specification, from the Open Design Alliance (which I run), is used by hundreds of software developers, including the vast majority of Autodesk's competitors.
All the government in Norway needs to do is specify OpenDWG instead of DWG, and they'll be in good shape. DWG is proprietary, but OpenDWG isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Want to know how to sort it all out? Get some sticky notes, and a whiteboard. Write down each suggestion on a sticky note, and stick in on the whiteboard. Step back... look at it. Move some notes around. Group them. Get a dry-erase marker, and draw some boxes, circles, and arrows. Throw away the redundant notes. Repeat. Call in a co-worker. Repeat. Call in your boss. Repeat... as necessary. Now, take a picture of the whiteboard. Get a notepad, and summarize what you've found. Oh... and all those software tools and processes you were thinking about for knowledge capture? None of them work as well as a whiteboard and a pad of sticky notes. That's because none of them let you work unconstrained by artificial structure, and none of them let you step back and take in the whole of your work. By the way -- the second best tool for knowledge capture is a cocktail napkin.
Nice to know I've got street cred now.
Evan Yares
President
Open Design Alliance
Applications -- such as word processors, spreadsheets, photo editing software, and CAD programs -- all have one thing in common: They are tools for the creation of copyrighted digital content. Just like Hollywood has an interest in the ownership of digital content, so do we all. Because we all create it.
If software vendors frustrate interoperability with their native file formats, aren't they essentially expressing a proprietary right in the digital content produced by their software?
Consider an example -- There are literally billions of CAD files in the DWG format created by AutoCAD. Many of these files contain designs for buildings, roads, and products, and many contain maps of everything from local subdivisions to military encampments in Iraq.
The only way to view these files with 100% fidelity is by using software licensed from Autodesk. No, this is not speculation. Neither PDF, CGM, SVG, nor any other ostensibly open file format is sufficiently robust to completely and accurately represent the data stored in any widely used native CAD file format, much less DWG. Autodesk loudly claims that only their software can reliably access DWG format files.
The Open Design Alliance, a not-for-profit industry consortium, publishes a specification and libraries for its OpenDWG version of this format, and makes these available to approximately 2,000 software vendors around the world. The Alliance's libraries are very good, and getting better -- but they have the limits inherent with reverse-engineering.
Autodesk has resorted to subtle EULA limitations, surreptitious encryption, and even FUD campaigns to try to limit the effectiveness of the Open Design Alliance. If Blizzard v. BnetD (a case now in the appeals court) is not overturned, Autodesk may be able to finally prevent the Open Design Alliance from reverse-engineering the DWG format.
In essence, Autodesk is attempting to impose a "tax" of sorts, by creating a situation where people believe they must use only Autodesk software to reliably access DWG files.
Many DWG files are owned by companies and people that are not even Autodesk licensees. (Consider that many of Autodesk's competitors, to whom Autodesk won't license software, are in buildings for which the plans are in DWG format!) Governments are major consumers of DWG-based data. In their acquisition regulations, they often specify "unlimited rights" in this data. Which means they have the complete and total right to exploit and use the data in any way they see fit. Except... of course... that they can't do this, if they, or their citizens, must pay a perpetual tax to Autodesk.
Autodesk is not the only company that behaves in this way, but the impact of their actions on society is larger than most all, except Microsoft. Policies such as the one undertaken by Norway give some hope that there are people out there who understand the question of who owns their data is critically important.
There's no need to develop a special open format for CAD for the Norwegian market. The OpenDWG specification, from the Open Design Alliance (which I run), is used by hundreds of software developers, including the vast majority of Autodesk's competitors. All the government in Norway needs to do is specify OpenDWG instead of DWG, and they'll be in good shape. DWG is proprietary, but OpenDWG isn't.