Thanks for your input :D
Jacques
Le 16/01/2015 16:27, Adrian Crum a écrit :
On 1/16/2015 1:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Did you read?
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Customer-number-from-suppliers-td142646.html#a142646
is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION.
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Storing-supplier-provided-account-number-td2076162.html#a2076162
is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3764
is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
Jacques
Le 16/01/2015 09:29, Adrian Crum a écrit :
I am saying the same thing you and Ruth said - Jacques is not making
any sense and I don't understand what he is going on about.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 1/15/2015 11:55 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
I suggest we keep it friendly. A bit more explanation in stead of curtly
sentences go a long way.
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
What do party roles have to do with identifiers?
Nothing you have said in this discussion makes any sense. I am just as
lost and confused as everyone else. What are you going on about?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 1/15/2015 10:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 16/01/2015 06:49, Adrian Crum a écrit :
I believe I already stated my opinion. The current data model meets
the requirements.
An identifier MIGHT represent a party relationship, but it doesn't
ALWAYS describe a party relationship. The current data model
correctly
represents the real world.
How can you see that the current data model correctly represents the
real world, when in some cases you would need to represent a party
relationship with roles, as you stated above.
Jacques
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 1/15/2015 9:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
For account number definition, are you referring to what Bob
initially
described at OFBIZ-3764?
Because indeed PARTY IDENTIFICATION does not entail a party
relationship
(actually it entails one but it's implicit as you mentioned below)
But you might want/need to describe this party relationship with
roles
attached to each party, this is the meaning of OFBIZ-3764.
I would be very interested to have your opinion on OFBIZ-3764.
Actually
I'd be very interested to have as much as possible opinions.
See my comment at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3764?
focusedCommentId=14276808
Jacques
Le 15/01/2015 15:48, Adrian Crum a écrit :
My California Drvers License number might be considered a
relationship
from the DMV to me, but it is not a requirement. An internal
organization might want to assign that identification to me, but
they
are not the DMV, and the assignment of that identification does not
imply I have a relationship to the internal organization.
So, the two are separate and unrelated. Until you understand that,
this conversation will continue to go in circles.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 1/15/2015 6:35 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
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
