Designation issues in databases vs History

[dan_inbox]

In the SNCASE designations thread,

Hesham's lists are precious but I find it annoying that the designations are not written the way they should.
The use of a hyphen (-) was not common practice in French designations. The X series used a point, but the SE series didn't use any hyphen, dash or point.

Stéphane is obviously right from a historical veracity point of view. Each country, each ministry, even each company, had their own way of doing things. Sometimes very consistently and sometimes less so. ABC12, ABC 12, ABC.12, ABC-12, ABC.XII, etc. For erudite scholars using the right form is important.

Then there is a practical problem if we use computer databases, which can grow very large, to tens of Gigabytes. That problem is retrieval of information. For retrieval to work effectively requires consistency. Then as per standard database management practice, one needs to define a format for the key, and stick to it.
My personal choice grew up to be ABC-12. For example the Bréguet Bre.V is recorded under Bréguet Bre-5, the Type XIV as Bréguet Bre-14, etc. Sometimes I go as far as also recording the other version as a 2nd key, for ex "Fokker D-8 D.VIII" if I am in a thorough and patient mood.
(*IF*, ...)


I am not saying that this method is the best way of doing things. Just that it is the only way I found practical to solve the retrieval question, which for me is critical. I would very much like to hear how the experts here handle this issue, and feedback from their experience.

 

[Stargazer]

The use of two separate keys/columns for a practical designation vs. an actual designator is indeed very relevant. What I tend to do is to display the former in gray font instead of black for it not to distract or confuse, and also leave it outside the print zone.

 

[Schneiderman]

There is a lot of internal inconsistency in the documentation of some companies, especially where designations have been applied retrospectively. Trying to unravel the Blackburn system along with the guys at BAe Systems Heritage is proving a mammoth task and may well prove to be full of gaps and general confusion.

 

[Archibald]

Imagine the poor guy that will someday try to make sense of the name of all Su-27 variants...

 

[Stargazer]

One thing I've also noticed is that the quality of company archives lists depends wildly on the proficiency of whomever searched and transcribed the designations. For instance the Sarah Clark papers index is full of errors, while the Spangenberg index, for instance, is remarkably accurate on the whole. That's why nothing should be taken at face value: the presence of a strange designation in a list can be an indication of some unknown type; it can also be a copyist's typo, unfortunately, which is why nothing can replace the individual work of a dedicated researcher. The archives lists merely provide a great starting point.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In respect to the forum, you can add alternative versions of the designation as tags on the topic to help guide people to the right topic.