El 13/06/2013 10:58, Cédric Krier cedric.kr...@b2ck.com va escriure:
On 13/06/13 10:38 +0200, Axel Braun wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013, 01:26:25 schrieb Chris Larsen:
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to
explain
how I understand Parties versus
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain
how I understand Parties versus Addresses:
If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one party,
then I will invariably end up with several contacts within that parts (=
big company) with their related
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013, 01:26:25 schrieb Chris Larsen:
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain
how I understand Parties versus Addresses:
If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one party,
then I will invariably end up with several
On 13/06/13 01:26 -0700, Chris Larsen wrote:
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain
how I understand Parties versus Addresses:
If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one party,
then I will invariably end up with several contacts
On 13/06/13 10:38 +0200, Axel Braun wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013, 01:26:25 schrieb Chris Larsen:
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain
how I understand Parties versus Addresses:
If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one
2013/6/13 Axel Braun axel.br...@gmx.de:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013, 01:26:25 schrieb Chris Larsen:
Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain
how I understand Parties versus Addresses:
If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one party,
I get your point - so basically you propose a three layer model, where
the current Party stands for Contacts, addresses are just, well,
addresses (physical, invoice, postal, whatever), and there is a meta-
level to aggregate Parties, as required. This does make sense and
offers the highest degree
