These look like accurate definitions from the books.

The thing to keep in mind with these definitions, and with the data model resource books 
in general, is that they describe a conceptual data model, not a "physical" 
data model (ie the one which is actually in the database). Silverston makes this clear in 
the introduction.

So, that's a good thing to keep in mind for these word definitions as well. Based on that 
remember than "entity" in the Silverston sense is _not_ quite the same as an 
entity in OFBiz. They are similar on one level, but only as much as the conceptual data 
model correlates with the physical data model.

-David


BJ Freeman wrote:
Chris Thanks.
BTW I just got the two modeling books. So I am now trying to use the correct terminology. Beyond entity there is supertypes entities, subtypes (exclusive and non exclusive)entities, Attributes, Relationships, intersection, and Association.

 From the book Vol 1 pages 8-12
An entity, is something Significant about which the Enterprise wishes to store information. A subtype is a classification of an entity that has characteristics, such as attributes or relationships in common with more general entities.
An Attribute holds a particular piece of information about the entity.
A relationship defines how two entities are associated.

rest is not from the book parse.
the relationships have foreingKeys and is defined as the presence of another entities primary ID in a Entity. BTW silverstone does equate tables to entities.

So with that as a frame work, what is it you are showing?



Chris Howe sent the following on 7/23/2006 1:24 PM:
After rereading that website, it should be entity (not
entity table) and associative entity (not relationship
table).

--- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Let me retract the use of the word "Object" and
replace it with "Entity".  I didn't use "entity"
initially because the mailing list has used the word
entity to refer to any table in the data model which
is broader than what I'm describing.

Entity tables: Invoice, Product, ProductCategory,
BillingAccount, etc

differs from Relationship tables
Relationship tables: InvoiceRole,
ProductCategoryRole,
BillingAccountRole, etc.

All of the tables that end in "Role" describe the
relationship between the prefix Entity (ie
InvoiceRole, the prefix is Inovice) and the entity
"Party".


This site is similar to how I understand the actual
semantics of this type of discussion.  If it will
make
it easier, I will use word choice from it.

http://www.utexas.edu/its/windows/database/datamodeling/
--- BJ Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I know that means something to you, but does not
convey much to me.
At least as far as how you see Objects in
Entities.
At this point not trying to get into weather they
should or should not be changed, just the semantics.

Chris Howe sent the following on 7/23/2006 8:56
AM:
ie BillingAccountRole, ProductCategoryRole,
BudgetRole, InvoiceRole, etc

--- BJ Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

When I read about "OBJECT", from a programming
point
of view, I have an
entirely different perspective than the Entity
Definition In the Data
model books they are based on.

So could you define your terms, maybe give an
example of what this is about.

It would help for clearer communication, IMHO.

Chris Howe sent the following on 7/22/2006
11:38
PM:
In the wiki http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZAE , I
have
listed all of the entities that do not comply
with
the
ObjectRole entity approach of showing a
relationship
between a party and an object.

Some of these implementations may be just
fine.
Some
of the implementations may have been done
before
utilization of the ObjectRole type of entity.
Some of
these entities may not make sense to use the
ObjectRole approach.

Whatever the case, I would appreciate any
feedback
on
each of these entities that knowledgable
people
can
offer.

Once it is determined that the ObjectRole
entity
would
be a better approach for an entity, we can
make
a
JIRA
issue for it and tackle the upgrade.

Thanks all!





Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to