Dear @ignacio , Not that I am aware of. Naming conventions are very subjective and client specific.

We've written are own company naming conventions and end up using the naming conventions of the client most of the time.

If you do find one which is public, please let me know. I'm very curious what other companies use.

= Daniel

Thank you for your response @daniel, 

We will take this based on this article.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/data-warehouse-naming-convention-kirill-andriychuk/

Regards

Dear @ignacio ,

Cool! Thanks! 

Maybe to add on the article.

For my keys I use this as a standard for my keys: _ Data source name]_]NameoftheKeyColumn]_Key
eg. _NAV_SalesOrder_Key

I use the _ because then my keys are always sorted on top, my keys are very recognizable and with an _ every tool will accept this format (I used to do a lot of Qlik and in Qlik best practise keys are usually formated with a % as a prefix, but for instance a SSAS cube doent accept a % in the name)

= Daniel
 

Hi,

that set of conventions is interesting: they put things that are part of what an object is in the name (view, function, datatype) whereas they do the opposite with other things like id columns.

The main key is thinking about it beforehand and sticking to the rules you set out. As you are likely to move data about relying on implicit context is usually bad (what id is this again? Let me check which table we pulled it from). If two alternatives differ in clarity, go for the clearer one. I.e. using abbreviations may make things hard to understand for others: not everyone gets that SAP's BUKRS is actually Buchungskreis or company code.