RE: AMF, open access (status update)
Hod Lipson
A quick update on making AMF open access.
After an initial discussion, ASTM officials have asked that we formally file a request to make AMF open access for three years.
The request has been formally drafted and is now being approved by the F42 committee.
Once the request is approved, ASTM (and ISO) will make a formal decision.
--hod
Hod Lipson
Associate Prof. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and Computing & Information Science
Cornell University, 242 Upson Hall, Ithaca NY 14853, USA
Office: (607) 255 1686 Lab: (607) 254 8940 Fax: (607) 255 1222
Email: Hod.L...@cornell.edu
Web: http://www.mae.cornell.edu/lipson
Administrative Assistant: Craig Ryan cd...@cornell.edu
From: Hod Lipson
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:44 PM
To: st...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: AMF, really open and ready for adoption?
All:
I contacted ASTM to formally request that they officially release this standard as open-access.
I will let you know how it goes.
Meanwhile, if there are ASTM officers on this list, perhaps you can see what you can do also.
--hod
Hod Lipson
Associate Prof. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and Computing & Information Science
Cornell University, 242 Upson Hall, Ithaca NY 14853, USA
Office: (607) 255 1686 Lab: (607) 254 8940 Fax: (607) 255 1222
Email: Hod.L...@cornell.edu
Web: http://www.mae.cornell.edu/lipson
Administrative Assistant: Craig Ryan, cd...@cornell.edu (607) 255-0992, Upson 258
From: Hod Lipson
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:14 PM
To: st...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: AMF, really open and ready for adoption?
This spec is ALREADY on wikipedia. And reference code is ALREADY open source and free.
That's why we put it there - so you can access it freely. If there is any question you have pls let me know and I will do my best to answer.
I probably can't just distribute the formal document, but if anyone wants to help edit or check it, pls let me know and I will send them the current draft directly.
However, you are right that since this standard is likely to be used substantially by non-profit users, perhaps we can work to convince ASTM to release this freely for non-profit use.
I'd be happy lead this. Anyone else supporting?
--hod
From:
st...@googlegroups.com [mailto:st...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Matthew Peters
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:36 PM
To: st...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: AMF, really open and ready for adoption?
If you guys want this to be globally used, having a fee-driven way of getting at the specs isn't the way to do it. There's a lot of people who are getting into this play field (that of Additive Manufacturing) who are coming from the Open Source mentality. In fact, having a fee-driven spec method is very counterproductive as it becomes an elitist way of guaranteeing that only companies willing to pay will adopt the spec.
Hod Lipson, you're view that either having the specification paid for rather than being corporate sponsored is incorrect. There is nothing that required you to have only those two methods. I'd like you to back up your statement.
I'm another developer similar to Daid who will not be receiving any form of payment for the software I'm working on beyond donations. I'm not interested in paying for something that will not give me any return on investment and it really makes me suspect that the specification is entirely run by volunteers if there's payment required to view it. It's in my own interest now to build a new spec that I will release fully documented on RepRap Wiki as well as Wikipedia that will fulfill the same role as AMF but without the fee required to view the specification.
Thanks,
Matthew
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, BobC <bobcou...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, "open standard" has different connotation to "open source". Rarely is the text of a standard copylefted.
I was challenged by Hod's statement to think of a standard that is free of charge but does not have corporate sponsorship, but none spring to mind. I've come to accept the practicality that standards are IP that I have to pay for, in common with books, music,
software etc.
If someone wants to create an alternative open source (copyleft) standard that would be great, but in the absence of that the best option may be to seek donations for open source projects. I am sure people would be prepared to contribute, myself included. I
appreciate this doesn't address the principle of free access though.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:31:48 PM UTC, Daid wrote:
Hi,
I'm David. Developer of Cura, the OpenSource 3D printing software package made for Ultimaker and other RepRap 3D printers.
I've added some very basic AMF loading to the latest release of Cura, build from the examples and information on wikipedia. But as hardly anything exports AMF yet, there isn't any real added value for the users.
Now, with the next big release of Cura, I'm planning to add a much easier interface to make plates of prints, or constellations as they are called in AMF. So it would be interesting to save these as AMF, as AMF supports what I need to properly store all information. (Without inventing something odd as the Makerbot .thing format)
As I understood that AMF is an Open Standard (according to wikipedia, and most sources)
However, when I went to look for information in more detail, I hit a paywall or a dead-link wall. Wikipedia points to
http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2915.htm, which asks $47 for the standard.
Wikipedia also links to
http://enterprise.astm.org/filtrexx40.cgi?+REDLINE_PAGES/F2915.htm but that download link isn't working.
So I'm questioning how "open" this open standard really is. And I'm starting to wonder if I really should go trough the trouble at all.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "STL 2.0" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
stl2+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
st...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/stl2?hl=en.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "STL 2.0" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
stl2+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to st...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stl2?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Daid
To post to this group, send email to s...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stl2?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leonid Raiz
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:38:14 PM UTC-4, Hod Lipson wrote:
A quick update on making AMF open access.
After an initial discussion, ASTM officials have asked that we formally file a request to make AMF open access for three years.
The request has been formally drafted and is now being approved by the F42 committee.
Once the request is approved, ASTM (and ISO) will make a formal decision.
--hod
Hod Lipson
Associate Prof. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and Computing & Information Science
Cornell University, 242 Upson Hall, Ithaca NY 14853, USA
Office: (607) 255 1686 Lab: (607) 254 8940 Fax: (607) 255 1222
To post to this group, send email to s...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stl2?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Hod Lipson
No final news yet. We went back and forth with ASTM. Since AMF is likely to be a joint ASTM/ISO standard, ASTM wants to see what ISO decides.
ISO is considering making part of the standard open access (e.g. just geometry) but leaving the rest paid (color, materials, constellations).
We are pushing to make it completely open access, at least for non-profits, individuals, and small companies.
--hod
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stl2.
Martin Wicke
No final news yet. We went back and forth with ASTM. Since AMF is likely to be a joint ASTM/ISO standard, ASTM wants to see what ISO decides.
ISO is considering making part of the standard open access (e.g. just geometry) but leaving the rest paid (color, materials, constellations).
Markus Hitter
> Of course an actually open format is by far the most likely to succeed.
adoption, not only an open standard, but likely also an open source
implementation of at least the features found in STL is required.
Typically, open source developers are reluctant to deal with paid documents.
Markus
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.reprap-diy.com/
http://www.jump-ing.de/
Hod Lipson
--hod
-----Original Message-----
From: st...@googlegroups.com [mailto:st...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Markus Hitter
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:19 PM
To: st...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: AMF, open access (status update)
tp
I hope this group is still alive as the last message seems to be 3 month old...
Are there any news about open access to the (full) specification?
And another question about the metadata tag... Is there some kind of registry for common names or suggested entries? On some presentations floating around I've seen "CAD" and "Software" to reference the software that generated the file.
-- Torsten
Hod Lipson
Torsten,
Unfortunately I have not been able to make any progress on the AMF open-access issue.
A this time, the copyright owners are not are willing to release the document freely, even for a limited period.
My understanding is that standardization organizations operate entirely from small fees collected by standards' users.
This arrangement prevents large interests from having undue influence on standard development.
There are pros and cons to this model, but it may make sense even for small companies to spend $50 to keep it that way.
Frankly, unless you are planning to implement the full-blown AMF features (colors, multimaterials, lattices, constellations), you do not need the spec document to implement it. It is really simple. See the presentation, open source code and samples on AMF wiki: http://stl2.org/
Anyway, if anyone has suggestions, please feel free to post or contact the F42 officers directly.
--hod
-----Original Message-----
From: st...@googlegroups.com [mailto:st...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of tp
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:28 PM
To: st...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: AMF, open access (status update)
Hi!
--
Torsten Paul
On 02/13/2014 12:46 AM, Hod Lipson wrote:
> A this time, the copyright owners are not are willing to release the document
> freely, even for a limited period.
> My understanding is that standardization organizations operate entirely from
> small fees collected by standards' users.
>
sad as this really makes adoption in the Open Source area a lot harder.
> Frankly, unless you are planning to implement the full-blown AMF features (colors,
> multimaterials, lattices, constellations), you do not need the spec document to
> implement it. It is really simple. See the presentation, open source code and
> samples on AMF wiki: http://stl2.org/
>
pull request against OpenSCAD that is referenced on stl2.org. That is quite
simple and might make it into one of the next releases.
This was also the the reason for the question about the metadata as that
code currently used "cad", but the actual defined value is hidden in the
spec I guess.
A post on the list says "We replaced “cad” with “producer” because often the
file is generated by things other than CAD, e.g. by scanning software.",
the amf-tools code still checks for "cad".
I do have some working code that would allow to import models and actually
colors would be one of the main interesting features that AMF can provide
where STL is lacking.
But I do not feel very inclined to actually publish that and ask for
inclusion while the actual spec might hide some crucial details. And no,
it's not about the actual price to buy one copy of the spec.
-- Torsten
BobC
Alternatively, if we are limited to "simple AMF", we could just create a different Open Source format. XML is XML....
I've realised that AMF has some severe deficiencies with regard to material blending and color specification anyway, and the more advanced features are complicated but too limited at the same time. Those things might be difficult to fix without reworking the spec from the ground up.
Jacob Barhak
The standards organization acts like a selling point of the product - in this case the standard.
The question is if this is a strong enough "seller" to help companies adopt the standard.
If there is a big enough buyer that decides to adopt AMF without the standard organization in the middle then going open makes sense. Is there a big company interested in this standard? What does this company want?
The issue becomes when there are multiple stakeholders - each pulling the standard in their own direction. Then regulation is needed and the standards organization takes additional roles.
If AMF is in early stages of adoption then benefits are unclear and it seems reasonable to have different competing paths of open/standard based. Once adoption increases it will be clear which path was better.
Regardless if the path, I hope adopters will respond favorably.
Jacob
Sent from my iPhone
BobC
The success of the internet has shown that you don't need committees to create useful standards, and when you can communicate globally and instantly they are more of a hindrance. Linus Torvalds has shown that individual amateur effort can have a big impact.
So I will suspect that the big players will go to Microsoft, the little guys like me will go elsewhere, and AMF will stagnate.
In terms of being an "STL 2.0", I have to say I think that AMF has failed already.
Charles Overy
I don't think that Microsoft is the big player in AMF adoption. What 3dsytems supports for file import and if they move to a closed or open format for their cad scanning content printing workflows will have a bigger near term impact. IMHO.
Charles