I would like to develop some guidelines for new contributors how to name their accession and how and when to create new directories. This has become urgent due to some email discussion about new contributors and particular some new contributions, like #82.

There are different demands for which we need to find some compromise.

I, as a maintainer of the whole project would like to have data compact and not cluttered. Some directories are desired but not too much. Technical we only support one level with directories at the moment.

There are demands from contributors. They would like to separate their contribution by contributing group, but also sometimes by a specific project, which supported the creation of this records. I expect that a entry in the COMMENT section does not suffice. For them its most likely also matter of public image. Sometimes this separation is not an issue, because there is just one contributing person/group at a particular institution. In other cases more "separation" or "distinguishability" is desired. You all know that everyone has to justify his/her projects somehow...

Possible solutions - technical view -:
-most easy way for contributors: allow subdirectories in the institution directories. This creates major headaches on my side, because it would mean a lot of adjustments to the codebase
-use a directory naming scheme like the one which is already in the current data and resulted in this this discussion issue. Examples for the scheme could be RIKEN_IMS, RIKEN_NPDepo... This is a easy solution because it works right now. Only drawback is the increasing directory number which makes the project view bit more confusing.
-ease the requirement on accession naming, thats easy to implement but might not be sufficient "distinguishability"

Besides directory naming we also have the question of accession naming.