Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ofbiz.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=iRKsL4TSAkmd/rivh9Lz94BLWhsvwptHhfUOvm4orbNr3D9EQV6VSncp+NukBmem619grdA+143HPbHAP2LVAPg6FE9lJhjSiU2dy2307NtqMAh1NODMTvDG03055k980A5EG75B5bK0aIcdg3uvy1VeKG6WoCXKT+gP7CEs+rc=;
Message-ID: <701391.70689.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 17:57:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Adrian Crum <adrian.crum@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Party Classification Data Modeling
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <52771A42-DCE4-4F47-9803-F275ECEB72D3@me.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't think I'm generalizing anything. The book is pretty specific and cl=
ear: Party Classification is an intersection entity that sets up a many-to-=
many relationship between the Party entity and the Party Type entity.=0A=0A=
I understand OFBiz deviates from the book here and there, and if this is on=
e of those cases, then I'll ask again: Why was it done that way?=0A=0AI'm t=
rying to make sense of the OFBiz Party Classification model, and so far it =
doesn't make sense. The way it is set up, I can't give a party a classifica=
tion without first creating a classification group, assign a classification=
 type to it, and then assign the party to the classification group using pa=
rty classification.=0A=0AIn the book it's much simpler - I just assign a pa=
rty type to a party using a party classification. Classification groups are=
 Party Classification sub-types and they aren't necessary unless I want to =
group things a certain way.=0A=0A-Adrian=0A=0A--- On Mon, 1/3/11, David E J=
ones <dejc@me.com> wrote:=0A> I think you may be taking the specific term "=
type" and=0A> generalizing it. Consider that *Type entities in OFBiz mean=
=0A> something very specific, and it is different from the more=0A> general=
 use of the term in the book.=0A> =0A> -David=0A> =0A> =0A> On Jan 3, 2011,=
 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:=0A> =0A> > That's not what the book shows. =
There is a simple=0A> relationship:=0A> > =0A> > Party -> PartyClassificati=
on -> PartyType=0A> > =0A> > If you want to group classifications, give the=
m=0A> parent/child relationships, etc then you do it with=0A> PartyType, no=
t PartyClassification. Look at table 2.3 on=0A> page 32.=0A> > =0A> > -Adri=
an=0A> > =0A> > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ Freeman <bjfree@free-man.net>=0A> wr=
ote:=0A> >> how about a pattern of parent child=0A> >> for PartyClassificat=
ion of supertype =0A> >>=A0=A0=A0and the sub types then use a=0A> table for=
 the=0A> >> attributess of the subtype.=0A> >> this would allow walking the=
 parnent child=0A> relationships.=0A> >> PartyClassification =0A> >>=0A> --=
->organizationClassification---->minorityClassification=0A> >>=A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=0A> =A0 =0A> >>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =0A> >>=A0 =A0 ---->=
industryclassification=0A> >> =0A> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A> >> BJ Freeman=0A> >> Strategic =
Power Office with Supplier Automation =0A> >> <http://www.businessesnetwork=
.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=3D52>=0A> >> Specialtymarket.com=A0 <http:/=
/www.specialtymarket.com/>=0A> >> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist=0A> >=
> =0A> >> Chat=A0 Y! messenger: bjfr33man=0A> >> =0A> >> =0A> >> Adrian Cru=
m sent the following on 1/3/2011 2:46=0A> PM:=0A> >>> PartyClassificationGr=
oup should have a=0A> one-to-one=0A> >> relationship with an entity called=
=0A> >> PartyClassificationGroupType.=0A> >>> =0A> >>> -Adrian=0A> >>> =0A>=
 >>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ Freeman<bjfree@free-man.net>=0A> =0A> >> wrote:=
=0A> >>>> so the Party Classification Group=0A> >>>> table would have a one=
 to one with=0A> >>>> Classification Types=0A> >>>> or vica versa.=0A> >>>>=
 =0A> >>>> =0A> >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A> >>>> BJ Freeman=0A> >>>> Strategic Power Office w=
ith Supplier=0A> Automation=0A> >>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/auto=
mation/viewforum.php?f=3D52>=0A> >>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specia=
ltymarket.com/>=0A> >>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist=0A> >>>> =0A> =
>>>> Chat=A0 Y! messenger: bjfr33man=0A> >>>> =0A> >>>> =0A> >>>> Adrian Cr=
um sent the following on 1/3/2011=0A> 1:41=0A> >> PM:=0A> >>>>> Looking int=
o this more, The Data=0A> Model=0A> >> Resource Book=0A> >>>> mentions clas=
sification groups - but I=0A> believe the=0A> >> author=0A> >>>> meant that=
 Party Types could be grouped=0A> together=0A> >> in=0A> >>>> classificatio=
n groups. In other words,=0A> the=0A> >> classification=0A> >>>> groups are=
 defined by the data contained=0A> in the=0A> >> Party Type=0A> >>>> table =
- not in a separate "Party=0A> Classification=0A> >> Group"=0A> >>>> table.=
 There is nothing stopping us from=0A> having a=0A> >> Party=0A> >>>> Class=
ification Group table, but it should=0A> group=0A> >> Party Types,=0A> >>>>=
 not "Classification Types."=0A> >>>>> =0A> >>>>> -Adrian=0A> >>>>> =0A> >>=
>>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, Adrian Crum<adrian.crum@yahoo.com>=0A> >>>> wrote:=
=0A> >>>>>> Looking at The Data Model=0A> Resource=0A> >>>>>> Book and the =
way OFBiz models=0A> Party=0A> >>>> Classification, it=0A> >>>>>> appears t=
o me OFBiz models it=0A> wrong.=0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> According to the boo=
k, the Party=0A> >> Classification=0A> >>>> entity ties=0A> >>>>>> a Party =
to a Party Type with a=0A> from and=0A> >> thru=0A> >>>> date.=0A> >>>>>> =
=0A> >>>>>> In OFBiz, the Party Classification=0A> entity=0A> >> ties a=0A>=
 >>>> Party to a=0A> >>>>>> Party Classification Group with a=0A> from and=
=0A> >> thru=0A> >>>> date. The=0A> >>>>>> Party Type is tied directly to=
=0A> Party with=0A> >> no from=0A> >>>> and thru=0A> >>>>>> date.=0A> >>>>>=
> =0A> >>>>>> Was that intentional? Why was it=0A> done that=0A> >> way?=0A=
> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> -Adrian=0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>>=
 =0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>>> =0A> >>>>> =0A> >>>>> =0A> >>>>> =0A> =
>>>>> =0A> >>>> =0A> >>>> =0A> >>> =0A> >>> =0A> >>> =0A> >>> =0A> >> =0A> =
>> =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A