Re: Party Classification Data Modeling

[Adrian Crum]

No, I want Hispanic to be a member of an arbitrary number of groups.

-Adrian

On 9/4/2011 7:34 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

Parent child is the same as grouping in my view.
it even gives you a hierarchy
so if you point to Hispanic you can find it under Minorities.
if you want to further define Hispanic, Like Castillian or Mexican they
can be child of Hispanic

Adrian Crum sent the following on 9/4/2011 11:10 AM:

And your point is? That doesn't assign Hispanic to a classification
group, it only makes Hispanic a child classification of the Minority
Classification.

At any rate, I have implemented the pattern I needed locally, and I have
given up trying to make the case for an improved Party Classification
data model.

-Adrian

On 9/4/2011 7:04 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

      <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<adrian.c...@yahoo.com>   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<d...@me.com>
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<d...@me.com>

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<bjf...@free-man.net>

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<bjf...@free-man.net>

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<adrian.c...@yahoo.com>

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