We are having a debate at work about how drawings should be named. We use the ANSI Y14 Drafting standards.

The question is are we required to use the comma separated naming convention like Bracket, Transducer or can I just name it Transducer Bracket?

I have reviewed ANSI Y14 (sorry I don't know the exact reference off the top of my head) and it gives instructions on how to use comma separated names but the way i read the standard it never says that you were required to use that scheme.

I understand why the comma separator was used. If you had a card index for filed drawings it would be helpful in locating the drawings but everything is digital now and you search with key words and not in a card catalog.

My thought is we should name a drawing like we use the name. The only reason to give a drawing a name is so we can talk about it without have to call everything by part number.

Any thoughts on this.

 

My way is to have
1. number for drawing
2. name for drawing
3. number where it is use
4. name of that product.
so it is easy when you search in your design library you just need to know something
about that part. Yes it is pain in the .... to save like that and gave all that attributes
but now it is easy to find something what i did year ago or later

 

Hi Jake,

I can tell you what we do. We follow the ANSI Y14 standards as well. Have to be a little careful on what you are considering the name in our case. All of our parts have a numerically generated number from a database. For standard parts things we ship on a regular base or stock in inventory this number is convert to a more specific item identifier name.

We then have a common name for each part (easy to setup in Creo and many other software) which is what I am assuming you are considering the name. For this name we follow the type of naming scheme, "Project; SubAssembly; Descriptor". For example ProjectX; Standard Frame; Support Bracket. We have always used colons since that is what our ERP solution manager works with best. For standard bolts and such the common name is the normal bolt naming convention. So it varies from part to part. This system has worked very well for use with hundreds of thousands of parts.

As you said I think the standard is a little out of date and really not intended to dictate internal naming conventions. It was written to provide common drawing practices from design company to manufactures to read the drawing dimensions and information. the name is not as critical here so I wouldn't be afraid to figure out what ever works for your company best and set a standard and stick to it.

Maybe others have a different opinion??