I don't think I'm generalizing anything. The book is pretty specific and clear: Party Classification is an intersection entity that sets up a many-to-many relationship between the Party entity and the Party Type entity.
I understand OFBiz deviates from the book here and there, and if this is one of those cases, then I'll ask again: Why was it done that way? I'm trying 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 classification without first creating a classification group, assign a classification type to it, and then assign the party to the classification group using party classification. In the book it's much simpler - I just assign a party 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. -Adrian --- On Mon, 1/3/11, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
