Anyone managing a Digital Asset Management (DAM) system can learn from standardisation and systems to better manage digital collections by developing taxonomy and file naming rules.
In science, standards in taxonomy play a crucial role, serving as the backbone for organising and classifying different groups of biological organisms. The system of binomial nomenclature, first introduced in 1753 by Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, improved order by effectively identifying ‘duplicates’- where the same organism was known locally by different names. The system introduced in his book “Systema Naturae” revolutionised the scientific community’s approach to classification.
Since duplicate files are a significant problem for many organisations today, it’s worthwhile to understand the system of binomial nomenclature and how adopting standards in file naming and taxonomy can help with structure and discovery.
The Historical Roots of Latin in Science
Different classification systems were introduced at various times in the history of systematic biology (systematics), designed to help understand the relationships between all living species. However, it was not until the binomial nomenclature, introduced by Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, that a uniform framework for naming species was adopted as it avoided the confusion of colloquial names regionally.
The first part of the name relates to the genus (noun) and is always capitalised. The second part, known as the specific epithet, identifies the species within the genus and is not capitalised. Both parts of the name were italicised in print to indicate a scientific name and combined to form the species name. Strategically, Latin was used because it was a neutral language widely understood in the scientific community.
The system improved communications because it introduced a framework based on:
- Uniqueness: Each binomial name is unique. The same binomial name cannot be given to two species, even in different kingdoms.
- Italics: When written, the names are italicised to highlight their scientific significance.
- Authority: In scientific texts, after the binomial name, the abbreviated name of the person who first described the species is expected to be seen, though this is not part of the official binomial name.
In DAM, similar principles apply when creating file naming conventions and metadata standards. Consistent naming conventions ensure that digital assets are easily searchable and identifiable, preventing issues such as duplication or misidentification. Keywords and tags function similarly to species descriptors, providing detailed insights into the content and context of the assets, enhancing retrievability and usability.
Flexibility Within Structure: Learning from Vanessa Atalanta
However, the story of Vanessa atalanta, the Red Admiral butterfly, named by Johann Fabricius in 1807, teaches us that naming conventions, while structured, can incorporate creative and cultural nuances. Fabricius’s choice to use “Vanessa” as the genus, a name not derived from Latin or Greek, highlights the flexibility within the rigid framework of binomial nomenclature.
For DAM professionals, this example underscores the importance of accommodating common names and user-friendly terms within a structured taxonomy. While the backbone of a DAM system relies on strict naming protocols to function efficiently, integrating more familiar, descriptive terms as secondary identifiers or tags can enhance user interaction and accessibility. For instance, alongside a technical file name, including common names or widely recognised terms can make the system more intuitive and navigable for users who may not be familiar with formal naming standards.
Balancing Rigor and Accessibility
Just as Vanessa atalanta bridges scientific and common understanding through its name, DAM systems should strive to balance technical accuracy with user-friendliness. This can be achieved by setting up a primary taxonomy based on rigorous standards while allowing for aliases, tags, and keywords that reflect the common vernacular or user-specific needs.
Conclusion
The lessons from binomial nomenclature highlight that while structure and standardisation are vital for clarity and efficiency, there is room for flexibility to make systems more relatable and accessible. In DAM, this approach facilitates better organisation and retrieval, enhancing the overall user experience and making the system a more effective tool for managing digital assets across diverse organisational landscapes. DAM professionals can craft meticulously organised and easy-to-navigate systems while users can benefit from searches that deliver structured results using everyday terms.
