The second one should be a PartyClassificataionGroup and not a type. -David
On Sep 4, 2011, at 12:04 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>
