That's not what the book shows. There is a simple relationship: Party -> PartyClassification -> PartyType
If you want to group classifications, give them parent/child relationships, etc then you do it with PartyType, not PartyClassification. Look at table 2.3 on page 32. -Adrian --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net> wrote: > how about a pattern of parent child > for PartyClassification of supertype > and the sub types then use a table for the > attributess of the subtype. > this would allow walking the parnent child relationships. > PartyClassification > --->organizationClassification---->minorityClassification > > > ---->industryclassification > > ========================= > 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 2:46 PM: > > PartyClassificationGroup should have a one-to-one > relationship with an entity called > PartyClassificationGroupType. > > > > -Adrian > > > > --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ Freeman<bjf...@free-man.net> > wrote: > >> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
