Botanical naming convention allows for a common name. Still think we could get the cross reference of common name to a hierarchical struture done by the number crunching machine, leaving us humans to call it by a common name..

Yes.

It's just another data field, after all.

Relational databases are good at that sort of thing. That's what they do (that is, relate to each other).

Just as long as the key-field (linking field) is something sensible. And therein lies the "problem":- someone has to feed the data into the "number crunching machine". Sounds a bit like we're going around in circles here (see Sean's original post).

The bottom line with stuff like this is that it takes what some folk seemingly aren't able to give much of ... that is:- effort!

They want "recognised" (off the shelf) standards. Quick - instant, even - solutions (even though the "problem" has been laying around for years, in many cases). Meaning:- they don't have to do anything themselves. Remember, there are 24 hours in everyone's day!

I wonder what happened to this thread (or is it yet another that has withered on the vine).


You got that around the wrong way, Sean, if you don't mind me saying. I believe that a better way is to get it done in this order:-

1) Model
2) Manufacturer
3) Type (equipment type or class)

In the real world (of tech support) you may never get to No.3) ... and frankly, it may not even matter!

The other point that perhaps needs to be stressed (Bill, Neil) is that (for the exercise that Sean was talking about) it doesn't matter what the users call the kit. They're not the ones using the database, doing the planning ... whatever.

There's no IF about it, Neil.

I myself developed a hierarchical equipment naming system almost thirty years ago. And - having just come across it on an old hard-drive - reckon that it wouldn't need too much editing to remain useful to this day.

I'll spare you the details (as I know I would just be wasting time anyway), but in essence I'm sure we could all agree to ten (or a dozen or so) basic or main groupings and then sub-divide (and sub-divide again, ad nauseam) from there - using codes, numbers or whatever you prefer.

Examples of the first grouping (left-hand side of the hierarchical code):-


Each division (and continuing sub-division) should be so clear and beyond doubt that it will be obvious where each equipment encountered falls with the hierarchy. Hopefully we can all agree that "CT Scanner" (or whatever you want to call it or them) would come under IMG, for example. That is, it doesn't belong under any other grouping.

In the system I'm looking at, IMG was assigned the number "3" ... and "Computed Tomography Equipment" ended up as 31. Other kit within the CT group became 31-nn (01 to 99) ... etc. It could just as easily have been IMG-1-nn (or even IMG-01-nn). It doesn't really matter as long as whatever rationale is devised is followed through (that is, designed in the first instance, and then continued).

As an example of further sub-division:-


And again:-


... I'm sure you get the picture!

I know that many folk on here scoff at the very thought of "home grown" (or DIY), and seemingly prefer to simply bung £££ taxpayers' money at every "problem" (and yet still don't get stuff finalized). But it doesn't have to be that way.

We could do (agree) it once and for all right here on the forum if the will was there.