Metadata in filenames

[mottosso]

Should file-names contain information to fully represent itself?

Explicit

$ hulk_1000_v001_marcus.mb

Here, the file clearly belongs to the project hulk, shot 1000, it is of version 1 and belongs to the user marcus.

Implicit

The alternative is to rely on the hierarchy, containing this file:

hulk
    shots
        1000
            private
                marcus
                    maya
                        v001.mb

Thoughts

In Explicit there is a duplication of information, which could potentially become out of sync. However, this duplicity could be used as a guarantor, assuring that a file indeed lies where it should, and when it isn't, it could be "returned to sender".

In Implicit information is inferred by context. It is minimally complete, no duplication of information, and each name within a hierarchy conforms to a hierarchical convention; as opposed to a naming convention, and as such is more difficult to break and simpler to program against (no regex required).

[mottosso]

Here is a situation in which metadata in filenames makes an operation possible where otherwise it would be impossible, without relying on an artists short-term memory.

Tasked with finding an asset within a hierarchy of files. The only clue given is located in the titlebar of the window; the file name.

Without metadata in this file name, it would be impossible for anyone to find the file, unless the full path was presented to the user earlier in which case he would have had to remember this path.