Looks like I missed an important part of you thinking.
Adrian Crum sent the following on 9/4/2011 11:36 AM: > 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<[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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
