Current
1.
1.1.
1.1.1
1.1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.3.1
1.1.3.1.1
1.1.3.1.1.1
1.1.3.1.1.2
+ Was easy to implement.
+ Looks natural form small technologies with multiple splits.
- Large technologies which are mostly sequential look bad in this scheme.
For example:
1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.1.1
1.1.1.1.1
...
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
New concept
Add letter on split. Increment on sequence.
1.
2.
2.A.1
2.A.1.A.1
2.A.1.B.1
2.A.1.B.2
2.B.1
2.C.1
2.C.2
2.C.3
2.C.3.A.1
2.C.3.B.1
+ numbers for sequential operations are much shorter
+ numbers for sequential technologies are more intuitive
- harder to implement
- adding a operation in the middle of the tree can change half of its numbering
- numbers for technologies with many splits are less intuitive
Sequential technology example:
1
2
3
4
5
...
20