【转帖】part list and obsolete versus deleted

yang686526

part list and obsolete versus deleted
i work in a dod environment and we are having an internal debate over the use of obs (obsolete) verses del (deleted) in the quanity column of a parts list for a part that has been obsoleted due to end of life (keep in mind alt also can play a role here depending on interpretation).  i've seen this done using obs and also with the del.  question is from what i've seen in asme, global, etc. i've found nothing supporting that obs is allowable and we want to maintain asme compliance.  we sortof feel del indicates the part is no longer part of the assembly and a new part replacing the obs part would require a new item #.  what are your thoughts on the use of obs and does anyone know of any documentation that supports using obs or disqualifies it?
i've only used a line through the item row, or removed the row completely, both of which are allowable.
when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.fff"> - thomas jefferson

i have used "deleted". but i was told once that "removed" is the new. i have not found it in a spec yet, i heard it's somewhere.
chris
solidworks/pdmworks 08 3.1
autocad 08
y14.38-1999 does have obs for obsolete, so it'a an approved abreviation.
interestingly, for del it has delinieation.
so based on this obs is more correct than del.
the appreviation for delete is given as dele.
a quick look through 14.100-2004, 14.34m-1996 & 14.35m-1997 doesn't turn up much as you say.  section 4.1 of 14.35 covers revision methods.  the approved techniques appear to be either complete removal with no indication that anything was removed (4.1.1) orfff"> crossing out, this time with the option of giving either the superseding data or it's location.
i don't see obs or del mentioned.
not sure if this helps.
kenat,