Post History
Q&A
How to tag distinct options/entities without giving any an implicit priority or suggested order?
Full names and arbitrary names are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question behind the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that don't ...
Answer
#4: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2019-12-09T23:26:03Z (over 4 years ago)
[Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario.There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".
- [Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario.
- There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".
- Another approach is to use words based on *function*. For example, a tax form I fill out every year has places to list two names (for joint returns), "filer" and "spouse". In the database documentation that I work on, we sometimes refer to the "initiator node" -- which could be any node in the cluster, but in the context of a particular operation, it's the one "driving" the operation.
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T11:05:30Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/42825 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
[Full names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42806/1993) and [arbitrary names](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/42809/1993) are good solutions to the question you asked. To address the question _behind_ the one you asked -- the implicit "superiority" in ordering -- write examples that _don't start with the first unit_. For example, I might describe a database with nodes A, B, and C, and then talk through an example where _B_ acts as the initiator in processing a query. Who says it has to be A? The names are arbitrary, after all, so don't start all your examples with the first name in your ordered set. (For that matter, why not have nodes K, L, and M?) If you have users Alice and Bob and Carol and Dan, try having Dan or Carol be the first ones to act in a scenario. There is value in having sequential names in some kinds of diagrams and examples, like that database cluster (where there might be way more than three nodes). Don't make your documentation _less_ usable by talking about nodes 12, 37, 42, and 139 instead of 1-4 or A-D. But you don't always need meaningful names and you don't always need to match "first in the sequence" with "first in the example or sequence of actions".
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-03-01T19:14:17Z (about 5 years ago)
Original score: 5