It has everything to do with party relationships. A PartyIdentification is worth nothing when not brought in relation to something else via PartyRelationship (in the case of OFBiz), specifically considering the PartyIdentifications of the internal parties in relation to the external. Each internal party will have at least one per relationship.
And if an external party is in relation with multiple internal parties, it might be so that each relationship has a different partyIdentification. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Adrian Crum < adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: > An account number is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION - it has nothing to do with > party relationships. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 1/14/2015 11:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> OK, let's keep it "simple". Suppose you have (this is demo data + >> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE", I just made it even if does make >> much - if any - sense) >> >> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" >> partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" >> roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO" roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" >> fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE"/> >> >> Then suppose you need also (don't try to make sense to this just focus >> on my point) >> >> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" >> partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" >> roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO" roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" >> fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"/> >> >> Then you can't have both securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE" AND >> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML" >> >> That's just what I want to say. It maybe have no real interest in the >> case of PartyRelationship. >> But Ron's request at OFBIZ-3764 would not be covered if we simply added >> a field to PartyRelationship to what was initially envisioned by Bob (an >> account number) >> Because Ron's request (the condo association >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium) is to have many different >> "account numbers" for the same parties in the the same roles. >> >> HTH >> >> Jacques >> >> Le 14/01/2015 23:54, Pierre Smits a écrit : >> >>> Jacques, >>> >>> In order to grasp what you tried to bring across I assembled some PoC >>> data. >>> See below: >>> >>> <PartyRelationshipType description="" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="" >>> partyRelationshipName="Agent" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> roleTypeIdValidFrom="" roleTypeIdValidTo=""/> >>> >>> >>> >>> <!-- relations from the left side party to 2 different parties >>> with the >>> same role -->] >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo= >>> "DemoCustAgent" roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>> >>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin" >>> roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>> >>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> <!-- the relationship of the second example with a different >>> fromDate >>> --> >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin" >>> roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>> >>> fromDate="2010-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> <!-- a party relationship reversed --> >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustAgent" partyIdTo= >>> "DemoCustCompany" roleTypeIdFrom="AGENT" roleTypeIdTo="CUSTOMER" >>> >>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <!-- both parties having the same role --> >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="admin" partyIdTo="ltdadmin" >>> roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER" >>> >>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="ltdadmin" partyIdTo="admin" >>> roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER" >>> >>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>> >>> >>> >>> All load perfectly well when the PartyRelationshipType doens't have and >>> when parties have the roles they should have for the relationship. >>> >>> So you do have to explain better, because I am not getting it. >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Pierre Smits >>> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>> Services and Retail & Trade >>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is not what I mean Pierre, please re-read >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>>
