[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
....
> We use accounting/manufacturing software that limits part descriptions
> to 40 characters (a fairly common, if no longer justified, limitation).
> We have thousands of parts. This means:
>
> (1) We MUST limit descriptions to 40 characters -- that's all our
> software allows.
>
> (2) "100 mm x 200 mm x 300 mm" vs "100x200x300mm" is 24 vs 13
> characters. When you are limited to only 40, this is a significant
> improvement. The 40 characters is not just for the dimensions, but
> for the entire part description. For example, try writing this in
> 40 characters, without dropping any of the information:
>
> "box, shipping, white, 1-ply, 200 mm x 300 mm x 500 mm"
>
> (3) The notations "Dim (mm): ..." are fine for drawings (we use it on
> ours), but not for part descriptions where we use a variety of units
> of measure.
>
> (4) We MUST do this RIGHT NOW to run our business -- no waiting on
> standards committees.
>
> I don't want to trample on standards and conventions any more than
> necessary, but at times like this I feel we have no choice. So, with
> all due respect Jim F., I ask again:
>
> What would any of you consider an acceptable (ok ... least unacceptable)
> way of abbreviating the dimensional notation in question, if you do not
> like the one we use (i.e., 100x200x300mm)?
>
> We WILL abbreviate over the preferred notation (we have no other
> choice), so I'm offering an opportunity to suggest options that do
> minimal damage to the integrity of the SI system, standards and
> recommended practices.
>
> My earlier post showed a version I liked:
>
> 100/200/300mm
>
> but then I realized that "/" can be taken for division, so my
> best idea at this time is:
>
> 100:200:300mm
>
> Again, we MUST abbreviate, so give me your ideas!
>
> Jim Elwell, CAMS
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, shucks! You're apparently talking about something internal now,
not labeling on a product or package, catalog description,
advertisement, or contract. In otherwords, this is a coded list. If you
provide the safeguards to state that all dimensional data is in
millimeters, in order to remind your people, you could even drop the
units if you wanted, or do as you proposed to keep the dimensions
distinct from temperature, current, power data, etc. The latter point is
important as pointed out recently when Lockheed-Martin sent data in ifp
units to JPL (?) who thought it was in SI units. A file of nothing but
numbers looks pretty much like vanilla.
Since this is an internal, coded document, I see no problem, Jim. OTOH,
if this is what you present to your public, expecting them to make heads
or tails of your 40-character product descriptions, I suspect that
investing in more robust file architecture might be well worth the
dollar spent. You could even keep your own records in that abbreviated,
coded form and have a "catalog generator" program translate it into
proper and readable data for public consumption. Even I could write a
simple record-at-a-time program to reformat the data, so that's
obviously not too hard.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
