You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Question

Question

Naming Convention Design

asked on March 14, 2014

Could you advise if the following idea will work?  I know the dynamic fields part will, but the returned name format might be too long without this new idea I've just come up with:

 

Idea:  Laserfiche will force new documents to be saved in the Record Series via a Document Naming workflow session that will use three layers of dynamic field choices for document types.  The resulting document name would end up too long, but... to fix that, could the workflow session be designed to return a shortened version of the field choices?

 

Example 1:  A piece of Correspondence about Historical Value Topics (where record retention is Permanent).  The naming convention would end up:  "2014 Correspondence Historical Value Topics Centennial Celebration".  Huge.  My idea would have workflow(?) return a C for Correspondence and maybe nothing or an H for "Historical Value Topics" and a user fill in for the actual topic of the correspondence:  "2014 C-H-Centennial Celebration"

 

Example 2:  A design for upgrading a bridge on Highway 36.  The long version would end up:  "2014 Records Land Records Bridges Upgrade Bridge #4 Hwy 36"  The shortened version would be something like:  "2014 R-LR-B-Upgrade Bridge #4 Hwy 36"

 

Is this possible?  Thx, Connie

0 0

Replies

replied on March 14, 2014

You could write a script that would split a given field by the spaces and chop off everything after the first letter of each word. You'd just need to feed it the field values that you wanted shortened. It would be fairly simple, but you'd have to know that all of your categories in the drop down lists would work with that method. 

 

You could also build a lookup table of common strings and their acceptable abbreviations. That one has the advantage of giving precise control over how certain things get shortened, but you'd have to manually build it ahead of time.

0 0
replied on March 14, 2014

Thanks!  I'll have to explore these two options.  I'm thinking the second option might be better due to the various descriptions I've had to use in the naming convention dynamic fields.

0 0
replied on March 14, 2014

Another advantage of the second method just occurred to me. You'd have a cheat sheet that you could distribute to folks.

0 0
replied on March 14, 2014

I like that idea, as well!

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.