Bob et al,
As I have found over the years, it is really the communication factor
at issue. Can anyone say they haven't been able to understand a
conversation after they have inquired about terminology unfamiliar to
them? The problem you describe is not confined to so-called Rapid
Prototyping.
Would a short term for digital fabricator actually be better as digifab?
Is "digital fabricator" actually a properly descriptive term?
An example might be in Bob's original query - using the word
"exceptence" in place of what I suppose he meant to use, which was
"acceptance". The context of the message gave me the clues I needed to
overcome my puzzlement without any further conversation.
In my own experience, and without realizing the term, I and many others
are/were using "Rapid Prototyping" in the sense that we would be
working/producing a design for production that needed to be evaluated as
quickly as possible but in a time that could not be achieved by the end
"production" method. Rapid prototyping has existed for as long as has
the need for testing something as quickly as possible.
All that notwithstanding, the term Rapid Prototyping is fine with me
until someone comes up with another term. I will be happy to revise my
vocabulary in the interest of communication.
Here are a couple of personal stories:
I once read a poem that used the term Sten. I had no idea what it was
and a trip to the standard dictionary proved fruitless. I called a
literate friend and asked for a definition. His answer - what does it
have to do with the meaning of the poem? None, the poem was about war. I
didn't need to know that a Sten was a British rifle to understand the
author's message.
As a designer and draftsman, I set a goal to create the "perfect"
detail drawing. One that I would never need to look at again due to the
fact that the delineation of the part was complete. It would be
impossible to get important features wrong or misinterpret intent while
at the same time vague enough to allow for variances in manufacturing
processes. I thought I had made it with a particular drawing until a
vendor change occurred. The new vendor started out using components from
the original vendor and all was good. They even asked up-front, if they
could make a change when the existing components were exhausted to
implement their standard components. Only if you request a change order
and are granted permission, they were told. Time passed, the original
components were used and when there were no more, a substitution was
made without prior approval. The results were a) Just-In-Time parts were
rejected by incoming receiveing inspection and were late to the
production floor because the drawing needed to be changed b) I began
deliberately omitting a dimension or two so that it would be necessary
to have an actual conversation with the vendor prior to fabrication
occurred.
Best Regards,
Paul S
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:04:43 EEST