Hello David,
Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being provided online. I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds are in the Data Model book. The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts separate. I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files) As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and update if necessary. Kind regards Carsten Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland -----Original Message----- From: David E Jones <d...@me.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29 To: <user@ofbiz.apache.org> Reply-To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi David: > Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some > responses. Please see below: > > On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz >>> applications, you might observe that: >>> >>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the >>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for >>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or computers to >>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table) >>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a >>> "SUPPLIER". >>> >>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a supplier. It >>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-) >>> >>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation? >> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running >> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase >> order is sent to a Supplier. > A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running > OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how you > name your accounts. >> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any >> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in >> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also have >> multiple vendors selling through a single store. > Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to > express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz > e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products. > > That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when coupled > with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the > SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type of > supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the > data model does not enforce this relationship. Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was discussed and decided on a long time ago. A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing. The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be confused. >> They are not really equivalent terms. > Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they > ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier. > Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or > complex than it already is. There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need different words, and have them. Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and inconsistent, so this is understandable. I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us. -David
