I think you may be taking the specific term "type" and generalizing it. Consider that *Type entities in OFBiz mean something very specific, and it is different from the more general use of the term in the book.
-David On Jan 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
