I will make some further comments to that issue:
I think, that those thought and considerations You still are doing at the moment, belongs to the most important when file managment, workflow, lifecycle etc. is in discusion.
And the earlier You are starting with it, the better it will be.
And it sometimes is better to change something, even with problems and work connected with, than keep wrong workflows and structures for the future.
there is another idea I hae over night, and this would be to make a small test:
What happens, if You change the order of Your columns in the windows explorer?
What will be if You move the Document Number and the Title column to left while moving the filename far to the right.
What is the difference?
Finally, no or no big one.
The main search column will be shown at the left followed by the next important info column (Title) and so on.
Is there a big difference than looking onto the Filenmae?
No not really, isn't it?
And this is the point!
If we will concentrate onto metadata more than onto filenames, this will work in the same way,.
No it even will work better than using filenames only.
You can change metadate (proeprties) as often as You need it to do, without lossing any filebased relations between 3D documents, assemblies and drafts.
If You not longer concentrate onto the filename to have certain "metainfo" in name, for example (and I have seen this that much often) "Beam I100 - 1000mm long.par", and now the length must be changed to 1050mm.
Now the problems begin!
And even worse, what else if there already a beam with 1050mm length exists.
And even worst, what if that beam is saved under a neighboured folder.
Nobody recognizes this, but suddenly You have the same filename twice in a parallel structure.
So beginning to keep info date in info fields, using filename as what it is, a simple filename, and many issues from the past will become easier to handle, less problems will occur and we can do our work better.
Fortunately the software always is developed, so that we can trust to get new problems in the future!
I have to say thank You for this very positive answer, and when You are on the way to upgrade to ST10,
now is the best time to rethink Your process and workflows.
And Yes, I'm confident that it will be a hard way, not only for Yourself but also for Your team.
Breaking old procedures, old behavior and old established methods always is a very very hard and stony way.
I keep my fingers crossed for You and hope to read a positive article here from You after implementing a good data handling for You and Your team!
Can you not just name the fastener part to be what you wish it to be? I have mine named this way. Whatever the thread designation is, folled by basic description, bolt, nut, what have you.
Thank you for your query.
I have already described the issue in previous discussion. Can you please check? In short, by connection type I meant where a bolt is used. Plate to plate joint, section to section joint etc.
Fasteners are just fasteners. A "connection type" as you describe it is an emergent property of how they are used in a certain situation. It would be absurd to name fasteners according to such "after the fact" abstract properties. Unless you operate under some very strange conventions in your workplace. Which appears to be the case.