After rereading that website, it should be entity (not entity table) and associative entity (not relationship table).
--- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let me retract the use of the word "Object" and > replace it with "Entity". I didn't use "entity" > initially because the mailing list has used the word > entity to refer to any table in the data model which > is broader than what I'm describing. > > Entity tables: Invoice, Product, ProductCategory, > BillingAccount, etc > > differs from Relationship tables > Relationship tables: InvoiceRole, > ProductCategoryRole, > BillingAccountRole, etc. > > All of the tables that end in "Role" describe the > relationship between the prefix Entity (ie > InvoiceRole, the prefix is Inovice) and the entity > "Party". > > > This site is similar to how I understand the actual > semantics of this type of discussion. If it will > make > it easier, I will use word choice from it. > http://www.utexas.edu/its/windows/database/datamodeling/ > > --- BJ Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I know that means something to you, but does not > > convey much to me. > > At least as far as how you see Objects in > Entities. > > At this point not trying to get into weather they > > should or should not > > be changed, just the semantics. > > > > Chris Howe sent the following on 7/23/2006 8:56 > AM: > > > ie BillingAccountRole, ProductCategoryRole, > > > BudgetRole, InvoiceRole, etc > > > > > > --- BJ Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> When I read about "OBJECT", from a programming > > point > > >> of view, I have an > > >> entirely different perspective than the Entity > > >> Definition In the Data > > >> model books they are based on. > > >> > > >> So could you define your terms, maybe give an > > >> example of what this is about. > > >> > > >> It would help for clearer communication, IMHO. > > >> > > >> Chris Howe sent the following on 7/22/2006 > 11:38 > > PM: > > >>> In the wiki http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZAE , I > have > > >>> listed all of the entities that do not comply > > with > > >> the > > >>> ObjectRole entity approach of showing a > > >> relationship > > >>> between a party and an object. > > >>> > > >>> Some of these implementations may be just > fine. > > >> Some > > >>> of the implementations may have been done > before > > >>> utilization of the ObjectRole type of entity. > > >> Some of > > >>> these entities may not make sense to use the > > >>> ObjectRole approach. > > >>> > > >>> Whatever the case, I would appreciate any > > feedback > > >> on > > >>> each of these entities that knowledgable > people > > >> can > > >>> offer. > > >>> > > >>> Once it is determined that the ObjectRole > entity > > >> would > > >>> be a better approach for an entity, we can > make > > a > > >> JIRA > > >>> issue for it and tackle the upgrade. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks all! > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
