There's a tension here between the two user groups who need to interact with the name: whatever software system manages the things, and human beings. I worked

There's a tension here between the two user groups who need to interact with the name: whatever software system manages the things, and human beings. I worked on a system that had dozens of small-form-factor linux computers, that served as gateways for a fleet of thousands of bluetooth environmental sensors. Because of the nature of the facility construction, it was considerably easier to provision devices before deployment, then record location and other meta-data later. So the unique ID (a 16-digit hexadecimal number) in the system was completely disconnected from the metadata, but the common name of the device was defined almost entirely from the metadata. That also meant that while the unique ID was immutable and described a unique computer, the common name more described a location and purpose that a computer could be deployed to. Even so, that distinction lived waaay up in the facility management software design, and in practice, the only people even aware that the unique ID existed and was a distinct number from the "name", were the people tasked with provisioning the device for deployment. Plenty of orgs have multiple people named "Steve", a few even have multiple people named "Stephen A. Ambrose", but no good org has multiple employees with the same employee ID number. And to further that analogy, no good org expects its employees to completely ignore the human name in favor of the employee ID.