Jason, Start from page 76 in data model resource book. You may find it useful. I am really new to OFbiz platform and my input is on the system analysis perspective, which I am myself doing it for my requirement.
Regards, v.sunder anand On Dec 7, 2007 6:58 AM, V. Sunder Anand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason, > > How different is your product from a 'apple book' check out this link > > http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/91324000/wo/WL5TonGOQkXf2h1Hy1L1ZvhTSUw/2.?p=0 > > > Can we combine 'features' and 'configuration' elements and collectively > call it as specification. Each specification could be represent a different > product. > > Regards. v.sunder anand > > > On Dec 7, 2007 1:30 AM, jason_lunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Sunder Anand wrote: > > > > > > Data model resource book version-1 precisely describes this situation > > in > > > the chapter 'products#products and parts' > > > > > > In my opinion, You may be better off referencing the book and ofbiz > > data > > > (entity) schema in parallel since you are sure about your needs. > > > > > > > Sunder, > > > > I managed to find this section using the Amazon "search inside this > > book" > > feature. > > > > It addresses my knowledge gap with regard to subassemblies very well. I > > now > > understand that subassemblies are supposed to represent raw materials > > that > > have been processed in house with some work effort but are not directly > > for > > sale. Thanks for citation. > > > > I'm still unclear as to how to decide what elements of my products that > > are > > determined by buyer preference should be implemented as OFBiz Features > > and > > which should implemented as OFBiz Configurations. Again, the context of > > this > > is a highly configurable custom instrument (dozens of dimensions of > > customizability), and I'm hoping to get OFBiz to help me build a system > > for > > letting users submit requests for quotes. > > > > It seems like I should not set out to develop thousands of concrete > > product > > variants, each implementing a set of standard features selected by the > > users' choices. Should I completely avoid any use of Features because of > > the > > number of dimensions of customizability, and instead use only > > Configurations? If I should use a mix, how should I decide what to make > > a > > Feature and what to make a Configuration? > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://www.nabble.com/In-Search-Of%3A-Theory-of-product-catalog-composition-tf4946653.html#a14199745 > > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >
