Subject: [IBIS] Open Source IBIS Parser
From: Ross, Bob (bob_ross@mentorg.com)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 18:03:34 PDT
To All:
The parser question is scheduled as one of the open discussion
topics at the IBIS Summit Meeting next week. We will try to
capture the good points and suggestions mentioned.
However, I just wanted to ask, what are compelling reasons or
issues that are NOT being addressed that would cause us to
change directions?
We currently have
- an official reference parser for IBIS compliance
- ongoing maintenance and enhancements under official committee control
- funds for substantial improvement
- free parser executable availiblilty for checking
- low cost entry and liberal terms for commerical ventures ($2084)
- adoption in several commercial products and translators
- even some freeware using ibischk3 (winibis, ibisinf)
- no limitation on vendors or anyone who choses to develop their own parser,
and even offer to the community for cost or free
- wide-spread acceptance of IBIS (70+ semiconductor vendors)
- commercial model development product and services usage
While the $2084 entry fee for virtually unlimited rights is
steep for the hobbiest community and even the student/academic
community, it is low enough to enable adoption by commercial ventures
large and small. Since the IBIS Open Forum is funded by commercial
interests, and IBIS representative are serving on behalf of their
companies, the IBIS priorities are rightfully skewed to favor the
collective interests of the industrial community for the common good.
The Quality Committee is really addressing the completeness and accuracy
problem. The ibischk3 parser is already an enabler.
The open-source model could be used for bigger challenges such as
- cpcoming Interonnect Specfication
- s2ibis2/3 improvements and development
- any other freewhere utility/viewer/validation tool of interest
Unfortunately, the practical problem is finding a way to seed the
new development. Once the Interconnect Spec parser is started, I would
favor an open source operation.
What puzzles me is that there has been a compelling need for s2ibis2
improvements and s2ibis3 development. A requirements document exists.
Even public baseline code exists. This is needed to address Quality
model issues at the source. This source code is freely available. So
why does not an open-source community exist for s2ibis improvements?
Bob Ross
Mentor Graphics
Lynne Green wrote:
>
> Actually, there are a lot of companies that have an interest in
> development. And they are not all EDA vendors, as one can
> see by looking at the IBIS Roster. Furthermore, Open Forum
> participation and BIRDs come from model makers and users,
> not just EDA vendors. These member companies are active
> participants in IBIS development.
>
> Al Davis wrote:
> <snip>
> > Actually, the current funding model doesn't work. There is more to
> > it than making a parser to a spec. The current model provides no
> > incentive for anyone but a proprietary EDA vendor to take any
> > interest in development. It is particularly offensive to the
> > academic and open source communities.
> <snip>
>
> Best regards,
> Lynne
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, email majordomo@eda.org
|with the appropriate command message(s) in the body:
|
| help
| subscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different>
| subscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different>
| unsubscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different>
| unsubscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different>
|
|or email a request to ibis-request@eda.org.
|
|IBIS reflector archives exist under:
|
| http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/email_archive/ Recent
| http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/users_archive/ Recent
| http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 18:13:05 PDT