> > I think I could live with procure and procurement, if changing it would be > too much trouble (I can imagine it is, being such a key concept). It is only > a little awkward. Look at the definitions on www.dictionary.com: > (...) > The vocabulary should in general align with international practice. That > would contribute a lot to easier and wider adoption. >
Thanks for your answer. Indeed my main goal is to stick with the most common and most generic international terms that apply for a given domain. And most of the time these are not obvious based only on the dictionary definitions. Look at the definition for "Routing" for instance, which is the correct international MRP term for this concept AFAIK, and is also used in SAP's Production Planning. As for Procurement/Requisition, I think people often refer to "purchase requisitions" as documents that need to be approved as part of the general Procurement Process. I can't find an official-looking link, but it looks like this is what SAP does too. So we could use "requisition" to specifically denote "procurement order" objects, but OpenERP has a distinction: no-one needs to actually approve a procurement order (as opposed to a Purchase/Production Order). So I would see OpenERP's "procurement orders" as technical by-products of the Procurement Process, and not what people generally refer to as "requisitions". What do you think? Anyone has field experience regarding this? BTW we're in the process of redesigning all menus for next version, and we'll post the updated menu structure soon to get community feedback on the whole thing. -- Olivier Dony (no idea how to get the forum to display real names, or properly handle BBCode for that matter..) -------------------- m2f -------------------- -- http://www.openobject.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48526#48526 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ Tinyerp-users mailing list http://tiny.be/mailman2/listinfo/tinyerp-users
