<PartyClassificationType description="Minority" hasTable="N"
parentTypeId="" partyClassificationTypeId="MINORITY_CLASSIFICAT"/>
<PartyClassificationType description="Hispanic" hasTable="N"
parentTypeId="MINORITY_CLASSIFICA"
partyClassificationTypeId="HISPANIC_CLASSIFICAT"/>
Adrian Crum sent the following on 1/10/2011 4:27 PM:
> I spent some time in Party Manager trying to make sense of the Party
> Classification feature, and I can't seem to make it do anything meaningful.
> Maybe I'm not understanding something, so I'll provide an example and see if
> anyone knows how to implement it in the current code.
>
> In table 2.3 of the Data Model Resource Book, there is a party named Marc
> Martinez who has been classified as Hispanic. I will use him for my example.
>
> In Party Manager I create a person named Marc Martinez and I want to classify
> him as Hispanic. I would also like to include the Hispanic classification in
> two classification groups: US Minorities and Non-White. I go to the
> Classifications tab - where I can create classification groups from a list of
> pre-defined group types. I choose the Minority type, type "US Minorities" in
> the Description field, and save the group. I want to add the Hispanic
> classification to this group, but I don't see any way to add classifications.
> I go to Marc's profile page and try to assign him a classification, but I can
> only assign him to a classification group. If I assign him to the "US
> Minorities" group that still doesn't classify him as Hispanic.
>
> As far as I can tell, Party Classification doesn't work.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Understood. If we wanted to create
>> entities to avoid the sub-types mentioned in the book
>> (Organization Classification, Person Classisfication, etc)
>> then I think we could have done that in a simpler way and
>> still keep the book's model:
>>
>> PartyClassificationGroupType
>> ----------------------------
>> *groupTypeId
>> description
>> parentGroupTypeId
>>
>> PartyClassificationGroup
>> ------------------------
>> *groupTypeId
>> *partyTypeId
>>
>> Anyways, I have come up with a workaround. I'll just use
>> the existing PartyClassificationGroup the way the book uses
>> PartyType.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, David E Jones <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Every single *Type entity in OFBiz is a deviation from
>> the
>>> book (ie the *Type entities are an OFBiz pattern to
>> avoid
>>> redundant entities and keep track of entity extensions
>> like
>>> the Party -> PartyGroup,Person thingy), as are
>> dozens of
>>> other entities and hundreds of fields. That book is
>> valuable
>>> for general concepts and patterns, and is not an
>> actual data
>>> model to be used as-is.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think I'm generalizing anything. The book
>> is
>>> pretty specific and clear: Party Classification is an
>>> intersection entity that sets up a many-to-many
>> relationship
>>> between the Party entity and the Party Type entity.
>>>>
>>>> I understand OFBiz deviates from the book here
>> and
>>> there, and if this is one of those cases, then I'll
>> ask
>>> again: Why was it done that way?
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to make sense of the OFBiz Party
>>> Classification model, and so far it doesn't make
>> sense. The
>>> way it is set up, I can't give a party a
>> classification
>>> without first creating a classification group, assign
>> a
>>> classification type to it, and then assign the party
>> to the
>>> classification group using party classification.
>>>>
>>>> In the book it's much simpler - I just assign a
>> party
>>> type to a party using a party classification.
>> Classification
>>> groups are Party Classification sub-types and they
>> aren't
>>> necessary unless I want to group things a certain
>> way.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, David E Jones <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I think you may be taking the specific term
>> "type"
>>> and
>>>>> generalizing it. Consider that *Type entities
>> in
>>> OFBiz mean
>>>>> something very specific, and it is different
>> from
>>> the more
>>>>> general use of the term in the book.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Adrian Crum
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what the book shows. There is
>> a
>>> simple
>>>>> relationship:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Party -> PartyClassification ->
>>> PartyType
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to group classifications,
>> give
>>> them
>>>>> parent/child relationships, etc then you do
>> it
>>> with
>>>>> PartyType, not PartyClassification. Look at
>> table
>>> 2.3 on
>>>>> page 32.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ Freeman <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> how about a pattern of parent child
>>>>>>> for PartyClassification of supertype
>>
>>>>>>> and the sub types then use a
>>>>> table for the
>>>>>>> attributess of the subtype.
>>>>>>> this would allow walking the parnent
>>> child
>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>>> PartyClassification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> --->organizationClassification---->minorityClassification
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---->industryclassification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>> Automation
>>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
>> 1/3/2011
>>> 2:46
>>>>> PM:
>>>>>>>> PartyClassificationGroup should
>> have
>>> a
>>>>> one-to-one
>>>>>>> relationship with an entity called
>>>>>>> PartyClassificationGroupType.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11, BJ
>> Freeman<[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> so the Party Classification
>> Group
>>>>>>>>> table would have a one to
>> one
>>> with
>>>>>>>>> Classification Types
>>>>>>>>> or vica versa.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with
>>> Supplier
>>>>> Automation
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to
>>> Assist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger:
>>> bjfr33man
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the
>> following on
>>> 1/3/2011
>>>>> 1:41
>>>>>>> PM:
>>>>>>>>>> Looking into this more,
>> The
>>> Data
>>>>> Model
>>>>>>> Resource Book
>>>>>>>>> mentions classification
>> groups -
>>> but I
>>>>> believe the
>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>>> meant that Party Types could
>> be
>>> grouped
>>>>> together
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> classification groups. In
>> other
>>> words,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> classification
>>>>>>>>> groups are defined by the
>> data
>>> contained
>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> Party Type
>>>>>>>>> table - not in a separate
>> "Party
>>>>> Classification
>>>>>>> Group"
>>>>>>>>> table. There is nothing
>> stopping
>>> us from
>>>>> having a
>>>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>>> Classification Group table,
>> but it
>>> should
>>>>> group
>>>>>>> Party Types,
>>>>>>>>> not "Classification Types."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Mon, 1/3/11,
>> Adrian
>>> Crum<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at The Data
>> Model
>>>>> Resource
>>>>>>>>>>> Book and the way
>> OFBiz
>>> models
>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>>> Classification, it
>>>>>>>>>>> appears to me OFBiz
>> models
>>> it
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to the
>> book, the
>>> Party
>>>>>>> Classification
>>>>>>>>> entity ties
>>>>>>>>>>> a Party to a Party
>> Type
>>> with a
>>>>> from and
>>>>>>> thru
>>>>>>>>> date.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In OFBiz, the Party
>>> Classification
>>>>> entity
>>>>>>> ties a
>>>>>>>>> Party to a
>>>>>>>>>>> Party Classification
>> Group
>>> with a
>>>>> from and
>>>>>>> thru
>>>>>>>>> date. The
>>>>>>>>>>> Party Type is tied
>>> directly to
>>>>> Party with
>>>>>>> no from
>>>>>>>>> and thru
>>>>>>>>>>> date.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was that intentional?
>> Why
>>> was it
>>>>> done that
>>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
