Talk:Digital Fabrication Diagram Standards: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "I wonder whether the similarity between library (drawing) number and part number (e.g. D4, L-D4) will breed confusion, especially considering the industry convention that part nu...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I wonder whether the similarity between library (drawing) number and part number (e.g. D4, L-D4) will breed confusion, especially considering the industry convention that part number & drawing number share the same significant number. Possibly | I wonder whether the similarity between library (drawing) number and part number (e.g. D4, L-D4) will breed confusion, especially considering the industry convention that part number & drawing number share the same significant number. Possibly | ||
* How about adding some non-signficant digits (e.g. library/drawing D904)? | * How about adding some non-signficant digits (e.g. library/drawing D904)? | ||
* re-cast the part number | * re-cast the part number as a BOM item number in a hierarchical BOM. E.g. if the drawer subassembly has a part designator in the CEB top assembly, say CEB.3, then the compression gussets might be CEB.3.6, CEB.3.7, and CEB.3.8, all being library L-D4 | ||
* the library number is now a short number coupled with the assembly ID abbreviation. This is helpful in simpler cases, but if a part design gets reused on different products (as we hope happens often with modular design thinking!) it becomes less useful. | * the library number is now a short number coupled with the assembly ID abbreviation. This is helpful in simpler cases, but if a part design gets reused on different products (as we hope happens often with modular design thinking!) it becomes less useful. | ||
* is there anything we can learn from part/subassembly/drawing number systems that are used in current industrial practice (any industry, any place in the world, might give ideas)? | * is there anything we can learn from part/subassembly/drawing number systems that are used in current industrial practice (any industry, any place in the world, might give ideas)? | ||
[[User:ChuckH|ChuckH]] 00:53, 13 December 2012 (CET) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:54, 12 December 2012
I wonder whether the similarity between library (drawing) number and part number (e.g. D4, L-D4) will breed confusion, especially considering the industry convention that part number & drawing number share the same significant number. Possibly
- How about adding some non-signficant digits (e.g. library/drawing D904)?
- re-cast the part number as a BOM item number in a hierarchical BOM. E.g. if the drawer subassembly has a part designator in the CEB top assembly, say CEB.3, then the compression gussets might be CEB.3.6, CEB.3.7, and CEB.3.8, all being library L-D4
- the library number is now a short number coupled with the assembly ID abbreviation. This is helpful in simpler cases, but if a part design gets reused on different products (as we hope happens often with modular design thinking!) it becomes less useful.
- is there anything we can learn from part/subassembly/drawing number systems that are used in current industrial practice (any industry, any place in the world, might give ideas)?
ChuckH 00:53, 13 December 2012 (CET)