The mundane name can't be the unique identifier. I'm sure we have more than one "John Smith" in the SCA.
The SCA name, if registered, is supposed to be unique. It says so right here on the label. Of course, 'supposed to be' is wishful thinking - there are a handful of cases where we have duplicates, and even one duplicate is enough to screw up a database that wants a unique field.
It's not just highly scattered and highly ambiguous. It's also highly incomplete.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-25 04:21 am (UTC)The SCA name, if registered, is supposed to be unique. It says so right here on the label. Of course, 'supposed to be' is wishful thinking - there are a handful of cases where we have duplicates, and even one duplicate is enough to screw up a database that wants a unique field.
It's not just highly scattered and highly ambiguous. It's also highly incomplete.