Computer aided design file validation system

• US 20060282477A1
• Filed: 01/10/2006
• Published: 12/14/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 06/03/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Fishbowl Solutions
• Original Assignee: Fishbowl Solutions
• Inventors: Otremba, Tim, Gruidl, Timothy J., Blesener, Rod
• Application Number:
  US11/328,848
• Publication Number:
  US 20060282477A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 30/00 Computer-aided design [CAD]

Abstract

A method and system of validating the integrity of a multi-file computer aided design database is disclosed. In certain embodiments the method includes providing a database containing multiple objects including multiple subordinate computer aided design objects, each subordinate object defining one or more components for use in a multi-component assembly; and multiple dominant objects, each dominant object defining a multi-component assembly, said dominant objects requiring the use of one or more subordinate objects. The integrity of each of the identified dominant objects is validated to determine whether any changes in the subordinate objects have caused defects in dominant objects.

Claims

1. A method of validating the integrity of a multi-file computer aided design database, the method comprising:

a) providing a database containing multiple objects including;

(i) multiple subordinate computer aided design objects, each subordinate object defining one or more components for use in a multi-component assembly; and

(ii) multiple dominant objects, each dominant object defining a multi-component assembly, said dominant objects requiring the use of one or more subordinate objects;

b) identification of modified subordinate objects that have changed within a defined period;

c) identification of dominant objects requiring the use of one or more modified subordinate objects; and

d) validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects comprises confirmation that each dominant object can be opened by a computer aided design program using the modified subordinate objects.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects comprises determining whether the geometry of the component or components defined by the subordinate objects is usable within each dominant object.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

a) validating multiple copies of one or more of the subordinate objects, said multiple copies being identifiable by revision history; and

b) further comprising validating each of said multiple copies of each subordinate object to determine the most recent functioning subordinate object for each dominant object requiring the subordinate object.

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising identification of the most recent functioning subordinate object and making said subordinate object available to a computer aided design user.

6. The method of claim 5, further comprising identification of the most recent functioning subordinate object, reporting and displaying said subordinate object simultaneously with the most recent subordinate object.

7. The method of claim 6, further comprising providing for replacement of the most recent subordinate object with the most recent functioning subordinate object.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising validating multiple copies of one or more dominant objects, said multiple copies being identifiable by chronological order.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein certain objects are both dominant and subordinate.

10. A method of validating the integrity of a multi-file computer aided design database, the method comprising:

a) providing a database containing multiple objects including;

(i) multiple subordinate computer aided design objects, each subordinate object defining one or more components for use in a multi-component assembly; and

(ii) multiple dominant objects, each dominant object defining a multi-component assembly, said dominant objects requiring the use of one or more subordinate objects;

b) identification of modified subordinate objects that have changed within a defined period;

c) identification of dominant objects requiring the use of one or more modified subordinate objects; and

d) validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects by confirmation that each dominant object can be opened by a computer aided design program using the modified subordinate objects;

e) validating multiple copies of one or more of the subordinate objects, said multiple copies being identifiable by revision history to determine the most recent functioning subordinate object for each dominant object requiring the subordinate object.

11. The method of claim 10, further comprising identification of the most recent functioning subordinate object and making said subordinate object available to a computer aided design user.

12. The method of claim 10, further comprising identification of the most recent functioning subordinate object, reporting and displaying said subordinate object simultaneously with the most recent subordinate object.

13. The method of claim 10, further comprising providing for replacement of the most recent subordinate object with the most recent functioning subordinate object.

14. The method of claim 10, wherein certain objects are both dominant and subordinate.

15. A method for error checking a computer aided design database for multi-component assemblies, the method comprising:

providing a database containing multiple objects including multiple subordinate computer aided design objects, each subordinate object defining one or more components for use in a multi-component assembly; and

multiple dominant objects, each dominant object defining a multi-component assembly, said dominant objects requiring the use of one or more subordinate objects;

validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects, wherein validation comprises determining whether the geometry of the component or components defined by the subordinate objects is usable within each dominant object; and

generating an output of error conditions.

16. The method of claim 15, further comprising validating multiple copies of one or more dominant objects, said multiple copies being identifiable by chronological order.

17. The method of claim 15, wherein certain objects are both dominant and subordinate.

18. The method of claim 15, wherein validating the integrity of each of the identified dominant objects comprises identification of which subordinate objects cause error conditions.

19. The method of claim 18, which comprises interchanging multiple subordinate objects based upon revision history of the subordinate objects to determine the most recent functioning subordinate object.

20. The method of claim 15, wherein the output of error conditions includes a listing of dominant objects identified as lacking integrity, plus any changed subordinate objects having caused the lack of integrity.