Talk:Part number

Problems for coding systems when namespaces expand or collide
Significant part numbers pose a very serious problem. They are not scalable, and at times limit the ability to reuse information.

E.g. consider this XYYYZZZNNNN, where X refers to the location where the part is manufactured. YYY Major classification - Screw, and ZZZ a minor classification - screw of type Philips.

The problem with this is that it cannot be reused because X refers to a location and if the manufacturing location changes then a new part has to be created. More often than not, we encounter companies with duplicate parts primarily because of certain restrictions in their naming convention that forces them to recreate parts with similar attributes.

While significant part numbers start out as legible, over period of time very few people are aware of the significance of the naming convention and there is considerable misuse of this information.


 * All very true. This is also the same essential problem as encountered with many other nomenclatural or encoding systems when their namespace expands significantly (causing a demand for extensibility) or the systems bleed into new namespaces (such as when a national system bleeds into international usage). The general problem is covered in the general article on identifiers, in the section Identifier > Implicit context and namespace conflicts. You've put your finger precisely on one of the instances. — ¾-10 00:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Part Number Logic Not Clearly Explained
The article says that "HSC0424PP" could refer to "Hardware, screw, machine, 4-40, 3/4" long, pan head, Phillips", but it's not clear why. To clarify, if the screw is "4-40, 3/4", wouldn't that suggest the part number should be "HSC44034PP" rather than the part number currently written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcjme (talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)