Feature Request: "Atomize" BoMs (for Helpful Engineering)

[hoijui]

Requested are new fields:

• ID: (crucial) a globally unique ID that identifies a BoM entry
• Name: a simple, human readable name that identifies a BoM entry
• URL: A link to human-readable info about the BoM entry

[hoijui]

Possible TOML format:

[[bom-item]]
id = 1
url = "https://..."
amount = 2
name = "Axle 5U 897M/S"

[[bom-item]]
id = 2
url = "https://..."
amount = 16
name = "Screw M3 22mm brass"

# [[bom-item]]
# ....

[matmair]

Hi! I am working on similar things and I think a "unit of measurement" field would also be important for useful BoMs

[hoijui]

Ehh @matmair ! :-)
Thanks for reaching out!
Maybe we can collaborate?
I have some idea for how to go about defining such things in a highly reusable format, but not so much about the contents (as in, the actual fields we would need), which it seems, you have a better understanding of.

Can you share what/where you are working on this?
I would like to work on a BoM standard that many parties will contribute to, and that is somewhat flexible, with the most simple formats being very simplistic.

[hoijui]

hmm... if we have "unit of measurement", then instead of "amount" t should probably rather be "measurement", right?
and the default "unit of measurement" would be "pieces"?

[hoijui]

well... either way, we should move this discussion else where; I suggest here:
https://codeberg.org/OSEGermany/open-bom/issues/2

[hoijui]

In here I only want to deal with the very basic, minimal set of fields required by Helpful Engineering, and then later expand from there.

[hoijui]

My plan is to use https://codeberg.org/OSEGermany/open-bom/, specifically its ontology, to define the actual fields/"columns" of the BoM we support.

[matmair]

Can you share what/where you are working on this?

I am genereally working on InvenTree, an open source PLM system. This topic is specifically intresting because I also work on plugins supporting project data portability; OKH v1 beeing one of the supported formats.

hmm... if we have "unit of measurement", then instead of "amount" t should probably rather be "measurement", right?
and the default "unit of measurement" would be "pieces"?

UoM is just the usual industry term for a unit as it alone can be unspecific. Unit(s) might also be used for qunatity of units. UoM is clearer in its intended use.
I tend to use UoM together with Amount or Quantity - both seem to be specific enough.

My plan is to use https://codeberg.org/OSEGermany/open-bom/, specifically its ontology, to define the actual fields/"columns" of the BoM we support.

Ok that seems to be a different standard, org and platform: Is there a reason to splinter the information and make it harder to archive?