Ownership of CAD files

[Anonymous]

This came though the email list of the National BIM Standard group, and I found it thought provoking. It's from an architect who works for the general services division of a state government. (I've removed the reference to the particular state.)



As far as standard legal agreements addressing sharing of BIM and even CAD information, indemnifying the authors, etc., we... are attempting to take the long view and streamline the inevitable argument over whether the architect will give or sell to the contractor(s) CAD (or BIM) files for use in creating coordination drawings, shop drawings, etc. We’ve found great inconsistencies in the disclaimer forms our architectural firms are asking contractors to sign, as well as the amounts they are asking for to burn a CD, and believe it’s in everyone’s interest to write a standardized passage in our General Conditions that will eventually be tested and proven. Not to mention the potential for delays while these negotiations occur. And since the State has asserted ownership of the contract documents, and the architects are only asking for the contractor to indemnify them, the State is exposed to claims from errors in the documents/electronic files. Hopefully once all parties have legal protections, and a set of reasonable expectations, information sharing can become the norm rather than the exception. Of course we need to also address the fact that the contractor needs to share the information they’ve added with the owner/agency for use in managing the facility. Please understand that we are writing this in the language of today’s practice, but hope it will to begin to educate and train our folks for the coming paradigm shift. We are hoping to post the new documents for review by the end of the summer.

[Anonymous]

"" Autodesk may be asking users, as part of the warning, to do something
that they can't easily do -- *independently* test the reliability and
accuracy of their DWG files. ""

Well, speak for yourself, Evan. Of course that would not produce the panic
you're attempting to cause by this statement

We have little trouble verifying the accuracy of our data, all that need be
done is check the results obtained from AutoCAD. It's called due diligence,
that we exercise with all software, not just Autodesk. The liability for
the accuracy of our data rests with us, knowing that, we make sure it's
accurate.

[Anonymous]

>We have little trouble verifying the accuracy of our data, all that need > be done is check the results obtained from AutoCAD.

How do you do that Randy? How do you check the results obtained from AutoCAD?

[Anonymous]

> Evan, this is the kind of mean-spirited, panic-mongering
> lie that draw a hostile response.

Yes, I can see that Jorge forced you to respond in a hostile manner.

[rculp]

"" How do you do that Randy? How do you check the results obtained from AutoCAD? ""

Depends on the result being checked, but usually a scale or a calculator is sufficient. How do you check a drawing?

[rculp]

"" > Evan, this is the kind of mean-spirited, panic-mongering
> lie that draw a hostile response.

Yes, I can see that Jorge forced you to respond in a hostile manner.""

A hostile attack begets a hostile response.

Curious, why are you not taking Jorge to task for his hostile well over the top comparison of Autodesk and cancer? Oh what a minute, I remember, you can't afford to alienate your few supporters, even if they come from the "black-helicopter"crowd.

[Anonymous]

You yourself said that the DWG files you create are owned by the customer. They are, to use the term you use, your "work product."

How do you check those?

[rculp]

"" How do you check those? "

Just as we do with any software, we check the results or the output, which is all the disclaimer states. See the section you highlighted.

PERSONS USING THE SOFTWARE ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING THE ADEQUACY OF INDEPENDENT PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF ANY PROGRAM OUTPUT

See it's not the big terrible impossible action you're attempting to make it out to be. It is simply a statement that we the users are responsible for checking the output. No big scary problem, as much as you'd like it to be. No real reason panic, but then you knew that already, didn't you..

[Anonymous]

> A hostile attack begets a hostile response.

Yet, he wasn't attacking you, was he?

This is a discussion group, not a kangaroo court. Your continual bullying and badgering do nothing to foster thoughtful discussion, and only serve to polarize the atmosphere, and drive away the very people this group is intended to serve.

[Anonymous]

How do you independently check DWG files?

It's not a hard question, is it?

[Anonymous]

Hi,

You get an experienced construction foreman to read the drawing and tell you
what he can and can't create from the information in the drawing.


--

Regards,


Laurie Comerford
www.cadapps.com.au

wrote in message news:5229652@discussion.autodesk.com...
How do you independently check DWG files?

It's not a hard question, is it?

[Anonymous]

> You get an experienced construction foreman to
> read the drawing and tell you what he can and
> can't create from the information in the drawing.

There are a couple of problems with that.

First, Randy's company isn't in the architecture business. They're manufacturers. And second, their "work product," as defined by Randy, may or may not include a print, but definitely includes the DWG file. (As he has stated earlier in this thread.)

Certainly, in cases where the physical print is the governing work product, it's possible to verify it visually. However, in manufacturing, and, increasingly in architecture, the digital file -- the DWG file -- is the governing work product, and the proximate program output that must be verified.

While I suppose you could verify your DWG files through AutoCAD, that poses a problem if there are hidden errors in AutoCAD (as has been the case at various times.) Any QA engineer will tell you that you don't verify something using the tool you used to create it -- and, in any case, the AutoCAD EULA *requires* the process to be independent -- which means you can't use their software to do it. (Remember, they're trying to waive liability with this EULA clause. If you verify your DWG files only by looking at them in AutoCAD, you're in material violation of your EULA.)

So, the question remails, how're you going to verify a DWG file *independently* of AutoCAD?

[jorgeledezma]

very good question Evan.

It point to the center of the paradigm (paradox?). DWG or printout? Printout or DWG?

-DWG is not for sharing. That should be the premise. Without a cad standards regulation agency DWG cant be used for collaborate neither.

-Paper, DWF or PDF is for sharing. Standard or Quality check is visual.

[Anonymous]

They used it on the Big Dig in Boston. While the project may have been a
mess none of the overruns or delays were because of the DWG files.

During reconstruction of the I-87 corridor in Westchester, NY. Revisions and
site information were constantly flowing between the Design Engineers and
the Contractors Forman.

We get both the DWG and a hard copy. Comparing the drawing to the print is
the first step in verifying that the drawing is depicting what is intended.

I can't speak for any other field. But in Civil/Survey electronic drawing
files are shared all the time. I have never had anyone complain to me that
an error was made because of a I drawing shared with them. I have had people
ask if I can convert a complex object into something simpler. Also the use
of LandXML had gone a long way to assist in the sharing of design data.

Allen

wrote in message news:5229915@discussion.autodesk.com...
very good question Evan.

It point to the center of the paradigm (paradox?). DWG or printout? Printout
or DWG?

-DWG is not for sharing. That should be the premise. Without a cad standards
regulation agency DWG cant be used for collaborate neither.

-Paper, DWF or PDF is for sharing. Standard or Quality check is visual.

[rculp]

""How do you independently check DWG files?""

Answered twice already.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" It's not a hard question, is it? ""

Not at all, that's why I answered it. But you don't like the answer because it doesn't stir up panic amongst users.

[rculp]

"" Randy, may or may not include a print, but definitely includes the DWG file. (As he has stated earlier in this thread.)
...
""However, in manufacturing, and, increasingly in architecture, the digital file -- the DWG file -- is the governing work product,""

In those cases we check the output as always. It's really easy Evan, maybe you need to get back to doing real work instead of trying to snatch others.

We Create a DXB file from the drawing ( see the DWG is still not the end product). That DXB is ported to our CNC machine where it is translated once again. That file is visually checked AGAIN on the screen, then the first piece is cut. That piece is fully miced for compliance (that would be the third check). See nothing to get in a panic over. Its something we do no matter the source of the data, and its something everyone should do if they wish to produce quality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" DWG is the governing work product, ""

Almost never, unless you're looking for art. The governing work product is the fabricated piece, be that a widget or a house or a refinery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" and the proximate program output that must be verified.""

Finally you get it. Yes the OUTPUT must be verified. That's why we check drawings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Any QA engineer will tell you that you don't verify something using the tool you used to create it""

That's why we don't use AutoCAD to check our drawings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" and, in any case, the AutoCAD EULA *requires* the process to be independent -- which means you can't use their software to do it. ""

Exactly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" (Remember, they're trying to waive liability with this EULA clause. If you verify your DWG files only by looking at them in AutoCAD, you're in material violation of your EULA.) ""

Still trying to stir up panic where one isn't. They aren't liable for your product, you are. Re-read your highlighted portion of the statement. The DWG file is merely the container of the data, even Jorge has stated that. The OUTPUT is what comes from that data, be it a plotted drawing, DWF, PDF, DXB, DXF or something else translated for other uses. That output must be verified, and luckily it is very simple to do, scale it, mic it, get a calculator and bang in the numbers. Really nothing to it

But you're still trying to stir up panic to drum up support for your little ODA efforts. See some here just don't know any better, they've been reading stuff posted by the panic mongers and have been thrown into a panic. You on the other hand, know the truth, but that won't serve your purposes. So you are conniving to foster unreasonable panic for personal gain.

[rculp]

"" very good question Evan. ""

Nah, it's panic mongering. Checking the output is very simple, we've been doing it for years, even before the statement was added to the EULA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Without a cad standards regulation agency DWG cant be used for collaborate neither. ""

That is just dumb, Jorge. There is no such agency and yet we collaborate with companies, suppliers, contractors from all over the world. And have been for years This agency of yours would be just one more bureaucratic level that would end up as ignored as the AIA layer standards. Its a waste of resources attempting to solve a problem that only exists for those who require someone else to do their thinking.

[rculp]

"" Yet, he wasn't attacking you, was he?

No, he was equating Autodesk with cancer. Where's your condemnation for that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" This is a discussion group, not a kangaroo court. "

Nor is it a place for unsubstantiated panic mongering by those with ulterior motives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Your continual bullying and badgering do nothing to foster thoughtful discussion ""

Neither does the panic mongering and unsubstantiated Autodesk bashing. Where's your condemnation for that? Oh wait a minute, those serve your purposes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" and only serve to polarize the atmosphere ""

it SHOULD be polarized, between those wishing to manage their programs and those wishing to gain from bashing the product.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" and drive away the very people this group is intended to serve. ""

There is a thread in this very forum that discusses some manager types that have been scared out of their intelligence by panic stirred up on these boards.

The people this group is intended to serve are not served by stirring up unsubstantiated, ill defined, necessary panic "time to rip autodesk".

The people this group is intended to serve are not served by the promotion of panic by self-serving individuals looking to promote their own special little projects.

The people this group is intended to serve are not served by these "oh-the-sky-is-falling-we-must-bash-big-bad-autodesk" rants about non-specific issues either, that's why I ask for specificity.

You have a specific complaint, post it, we'll discuss it, I am capable of that. But if you or anyone else just want to be hostile, expect hostile responses.

Now, more to the point of this particular post. When you get to be a moderator you'll get to tell me when and what to post. When you ask specific questions, I make specific answers, when you attempt hostile panic mongering, I'll respond in kind.

[Anonymous]

Here, you've answered with specificity (kind of pleasant, actually)

> We Create a DXB file from the drawing...

You do first-article inspection -- which, in your case, makes sense.

The step you left out of your process is where third-party software is used to convert the DXB to machine code (probably G code.) This process actually provides some verification -- but it is subject to flaws in the third-party code used to read the DXB -- probably as a result of the incomplete documentation provided for the format.

In any case, you've outlined a process here that would seem to provide sufficient independent verification of your AutoCAD program output.

Still, your process is not universally applicable. The DWG to DXB conversion loses data, and isn't satisfactory for many downstream uses.

(Have you tried this process using the new AutoCAD 2007 3D objects?)

> The governing work product is the fabricated piece...

That may be true for your company, but most manufacturers I know of use their engineering documents as the specification that defines their products. Possibly the use of the term "work product" (a term that you've used a lot) is confusing.

> But you're still trying to stir up panic to drum
> up support for your little ODA efforts.

No, I'm trying to have discuss issues related to ownership and usage of CAD files. I'm seeking clarity.

What's with you Randy? It was a great post, until the last part, where you decided to get a couple of jabs in. This stuff just serves to raise the heat level here, without providing any light in the process.

[Anonymous]

"" Here, you've answered with specificity (kind of pleasant, actually) ""

When given a specific question, I nearly always respond with a specific
answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" In any case, you've outlined a process here that would seem to provide
sufficient independent verification of your AutoCAD program output. ""

For that aspect of our business that uses CNC. Others require different
processes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Still, your process is not universally applicable. The DWG to DXB
conversion loses data, and isn't satisfactory for many downstream uses. ""

For that aspect of our business it is quite acceptable. Other applications
require other means of verification as I pointed out in the previous post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" (Have you tried this process using the new AutoCAD 2007 3D objects?) ""

We currently have no new machine projects on board that require new coding.
But it is my understanding that the machine group has completed testing and
have recommended upgrading our machine controls. I haven't seen the report
yet, so I can't speak for that evaluation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" That may be true for your company, but most manufacturers I know of use
their engineering documents as the specification that defines their
products. ""

And methods for checking those documents independently of AutoCAD should be
in place. Those are easier to check that a machine piece.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Possibly the use of the term "work product" (a term that you've used a
lot) is confusing. ""

Oh? What would you prefer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" No, I'm trying to have discuss issues related to ownership and usage of
CAD files. I'm seeking clarity. ""

Truly? You're trying to say that you have no clue how to check a drawing??
Can't add numbers with a calculator?? C'mon, how much clarity do you really
need??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" This stuff just serves to raise the heat level here, without providing
any light in the process. ""

Oh it provides a lot of light, just not where you want it focused. The
comment in the EULA that you highlighted is merely telling you to check your
output, and your posts here are attempting to blow it out of proportion and
create something for users to worry about. Now if you truly don't know how
to check a drawing then I apologize for the jabs, but if that's true, I have
other questions about your abilities elsewhere. But if, as I guess, you do
know how to simply check a drawing, there's your clarity, and that leaves
your posts here looking for a reason to exist. Now if you don't like the
reason I've guessed, provide a plausible alternative.

[Anonymous]

Randy,
Thank you for taking the time to deal with Jorge's posts.
He is doing us a dis-service with all these irrelevent worries.
If Autodesk thought all of us had his concerns, they would just shut this NG down, I'm sure.

Randy Culp <>
|>"" but we don't have any agency for ruling the standardization, and we use that file for sharing""
|>
|>oh here we go again. Jorge, one size does NOT fit all. If you want the AIA to manage the standardization of Architectural files then call on them. But AIA standards ONLY work for architects (and not very well there), they don't work at all in our industry or any other for that matter. A single standard will only reduce the flexibility of the tool and in turn it usefulness. For a change try looking at the several hundred industries utilizing Autodesk products that are not architectural.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" Can yo imagine if you contractor give you a bunch of maylar drawings, but lets say, cutted in little pieces, like a puzzle or something like that? ""
|>
|>Autodesk doesn't do that either. Very poor analogy.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" "if you change your drafting table, maylar and pencil for computer, keyboard and mouse, you have to change your procedures also" That change haven arrived yet, at least in the majority here. ""
|>
|>Speak only for yourself on that issue Jorge. You're the only poster I've seen that refuses to setup his own standards with even a minimum of customization. You'd prefer someone else to tell you how and what to draw.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" Lets say you have your own cad standard and you inquire to your contarctor uses that before they send you the file. But you are not the only contractor client. Who pays to the contractor that custom standard for each client like you.""
|>
|>We provide our suppliers with the tools to accomplish our standards, as should any firm.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" We stiil need another code to prepares the layers, block, views and other dwg subproducts, before interchange the dwg file. Who will create that code? ""
|>
|>We do. I have a question Jorge, as an architect how would you like a standard developed by a steel fabricator. Only the layers and styles needed for steel fabrication are allowed in this new code. Would that fit you well? Probably not, just as one created by the AIA would not fit us. And should Autodesk attempt some standard that will accommodate ALL possible users in ALL possible industries it will be much to cumbersome to be of any use at all. Surely you can see that.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" It have to be a council, a group, for inside ACAD users, and for outside ACAD users. ""
|>
|>oh no, a committee?? that'll guarantee it's uselessness.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" But first we need to figure out to whom belogns the dwg to...""
|>
|>nope already done that, you just don't like the result for some reason.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com