original order in which they appear, as well as the intellectual context
by keeping groups of bound documents together. We then assigned
numbers to each folder, designated as f(x), and numbers to each
document, designated as d(x). For example, the very first document in
the Electrical Power Subsystem box would have the title assigned f1d1,
referring to its position in the group. The next challenge was to use
these document titles to create a conceptual bridge between the real
document and its digital counterpart while following the best practices
of digital file naming.
In order to keep file names from exceeding the recommended
number of 31 characters, we had to develop a system of abbreviations
that would locate the file names within the context of our collections
and would be used as a referential name rather than as a descriptive
name. Our rationale for this emphasis on the referential aspect was
that metadata would provide the description of the digital file. File
names would follow the pattern as shown in Figure APOL-1. Rather
than describing a document’s intellectual content, we focused on the
document’s physical context. For example, the Master TIFF version of
the very first document found in the EPS box, named f1d1, would have
the digital file name of: kcas204_eps_f1d1.tif; its compressed-forweb-jpeg counterpart would be: kcas204_eps_f1d1ow.jpg.
Occasionally, a document would need to be scanned or photograph in
parts, which would require the use of a part designator; in the
example above, the optimized TIFF version of the same document
would have added at the end of the file name.
The overall effect of this new naming protocol has streamlined
our ability to track digital data. Its success has compelled us to change
all of our previously digitized materials’ filenames, and develop
patterns for naming all future digitization projects. With a few
alterations we are able to use this file-naming tree for any internal or
external digital collection we develop at FHSU.
Apollo 13.0 48