so the Party Classification Group table would have a one to one with
Classification Types
or vica versa.
=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Adrian Crum sent the following on 1/3/2011 1:41 PM:
Looking into this more, The Data Model Resource Book mentions classification groups - but I believe
the author meant that Party Types could be grouped together in classification groups. In other
words, the classification groups are defined by the data contained in the Party Type table - not in
a separate "Party Classification Group" table. There is nothing stopping us from having a
Party Classification Group table, but it should group Party Types, not "Classification
Types."
-Adrian
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, Adrian Crum<adrian.c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Looking at The Data Model Resource
Book and the way OFBiz models Party Classification, it
appears to me OFBiz models it wrong.
According to the book, the Party Classification entity ties
a Party to a Party Type with a from and thru date.
In OFBiz, the Party Classification entity ties a Party to a
Party Classification Group with a from and thru date. The
Party Type is tied directly to Party with no from and thru
date.
Was that intentional? Why was it done that way?
-Adrian
