Curious as to why users/organizations distinguish part and assembly features, and part and assembly layers when naming them.
For example, the start CS for a part might be called CS_DEF in a company template start model. For the same in an assembly, the CS is called ACS_DEF.
In my eye, a co-ord. system is a co-ord. system, whether it resides in a part or in an assembly. I could never reason what advantage there could be in distinguishing the two.
Similar was done in layers: one distinct layer for collecting start datum features for parts, and another distinct layer for collecting start datum features for assemblies.
For layers at least, I could convince and implement only one layer (rule based) to collect the start datum features of a file under the same name regardless if part or assembly (which in a larger assembly reduces the number of different standard layers significantly). (0_START_DATUMS in each file regardless if prt or asm)
I'd love to just not bother with the extra "A" in all the names. What disadvantage would I have to changing the naming convention to be the same for prt and asm?
I know of no reason for have in in the first place.
Aside:
When posting a discussion, what does "Tags" do or used for? (Can you tell I lurk much much more than post?)