All, in order to work this up for the German locale, I have opened: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4622
and commented here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Dictionary+for+translations+to+German Please assess my suggestions. I shall be committing those labels on the "de_DE" locale first (which is free to be used in parallel to the "de" locale). Christian, if you follow this, kindly assess my suggestions and take over for the default "de" locale labels whatever you may find making sense. Kind regards Carsten PS: [Ruth, I owe you this:] Actually I did not mean you personally commenting fuzzily. It is just a fact that many comments on this list are from the top of people's mind and how they use OFBiz (especailly when it comes to questions regarding the domain data model, not necessarily technicalities). You are actually an outstanding exception to the rule !! 2011/12/11 Ruth Hoffman <[email protected]> > On 12/11/11 2:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >>> Hi Carsten: >>> I hope you are not implying that my writing about OFBiz is "fuzzy". I >>> take great pains to ensure that it is as clear and concise as possible. >>> Where I am stating an opinion or interpretation I try to make sure that >>> this is the case from the get-go. (I however am a native English >>> speaking person and do not know enough about other languages to >>> communicate effectively in any other tongue.) >>> >>> Beyond that I agree 100% that the Data Model books are the authoritative >>> source for the OFBIz Data Model. I use them extensively, even before I >>> review how a particular business process is implemented in OFBIz. You >>> will note, if you review my original comments, I site the data model as >>> the basis for my interpretation. >>> >> Actually no, "The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1" >> is NOT the authoritative source for the OFBiz data model. It can only be >> characterized as a good resource for understanding the general concepts >> of the data model of OFBiz, and many of the foundational business >> concepts that are represented in OFBiz. It is nothing more than that. >> > OK - then I stand corrected and I will now and forever say that: The Data > Model Resource Book, Revised Edition Volume 1 is the closest thing I've got > to an authoritative source as relates to the OFBiz data model. Since I > can't possibly keep it all in my head, I personally, will stick to these > books until something better comes along. It goes without saying - but I'll > say it anyway - that everyone else is welcome to do as they please. In my > case, if anyone asks, I will still defer to these books, as the > documentation that comes with the OFBiz project is not enough to begin to > understand it. > > >> That said, IMHO, it is not enough to answer a question with "go look at >>> the Data Model books". The reason I say that is because OFBiz does not >>> follow the books exactly. And even where it does, language barriers such >>> as you mention, tend to obscure understanding. Hence, the question that >>> started this discussion in the first place. The data model is just a >>> starting point. There is much to OFBiz that is not handled as a direct >>> result of the relationships defined in the data model or as outlined in >>> the books. >>> >> That is correct, OFBiz does not follow the books exactly. Most of the >> differences people mention to me end up being different interpretations >> of what is in the books, as OFBiz is really pretty close. There are also >> of course differences in the table design since the books have a >> conceptual data model, and OFBiz needs a physical data model (and volume >> 1 does a good job of describing the difference for those interested). >> >> The best resource to answer these questions is to look at the OFBiz >> entity definitions themselves. The general structures and relationships >> to other entities can help with their meaning and intended use, and a >> lot of them have comments, and in this case even the VendorProduct >> entity has a pretty helpful comment to describe how it is meant to be >> used. >> > Oh were it true...then we would not be having this discussion. May I make > a suggestion? Instead of continuing to say go look at the entity > definitions "themselves", why not offer to do something positive and help > with the OFBiz learning experience. I'm thinking something like building a > few process diagrams that show graphically what you have been trying to > articulate here. Shouldn't take you too long to knock a few of them out. > Right? Consider it a challenge from someone who has been trying to > understand this stuff by reading the code and looking at the entity > definitions and in some cases building process diagrams, for several years > now and then attempting to explain it to others. > > Finally, and this comment is not directed at you but the community as a >>> whole: IMHO, if you don't have anything good to say about OFBiz or about >>> discourse related to understanding OFBiz, then do NOT post your comments >>> on this forum. It doesn't serve the OFBiz community nor does it help the >>> cause. >>> >> Sorry, I 100% disagree. Apache OFBiz is not perfect and if all we do is >> sit around and pay each other on the back, it won't get any better. >> > Sure its not perfect. But neither am I. That doesn't stop me from > encouraging others to use it. It certainly doesn't stop me from helping > other people to understand it. I've been around this industry for longer > than you have and based on my experiences, I will continue to say with a > great deal of conviction, that OFBiz has no rivals when all things are > considered. Until I see something better, I'm committed to making OFBiz the > best it can be. > > I do agree that anyone who can't handle open discussion of issues or who >> things that issues shouldn't be discussed (or who discusses issues >> without researching and with no experience) would help the project by >> > That is not what I said. But if you want to openly debate (or argue) about > something with me, OFBiz or otherwise, please just come out and say it. I'm > not afraid to discuss things with you. I have lots to learn about OFBiz. I > learn new things about it every day. So please, save me the trouble of > digging through the code and enlighten me today! How about starting with > updating the aforementioned glossary? > > Just a thought. > > Regards > Ruth > > posting less. >> >> -David >> >> >> On 12/11/11 9:18 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Hello David, >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being >>>> provided online. >>>> >>>> I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and >>>> other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds >>>> are in the Data Model book. >>>> >>>> The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is >>>> the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same >>>> term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts >>>> separate. >>>> >>>> I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they >>>> will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language >>>> translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same >>>> translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still >>>> confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files) >>>> >>>> As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and >>>> update if necessary. >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> >>>> Carsten >>>> >>>> Gesendet mit BlackBerryŽ Webmail von Telekom Deutschland >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: David E Jones<[email protected]> >>>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29 >>>> To:<[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi David: >>>>> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some >>>>> responses. Please see below: >>>>> >>>>> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz >>>>>>> applications, you might observe that: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for >>>>>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or >>>>>>> computers to >>>>>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table) >>>>>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a >>>>>>> "SUPPLIER". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a >>>>>>> supplier. It >>>>>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running >>>>>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase >>>>>> order is sent to a Supplier. >>>>>> >>>>> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running >>>>> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how >>>>> you >>>>> name your accounts. >>>>> >>>>>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any >>>>>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores >>>>>> in >>>>>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also >>>>>> have >>>>>> multiple vendors selling through a single store. >>>>>> >>>>> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to >>>>> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz >>>>> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products. >>>>> >>>>> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when >>>>> coupled >>>>> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the >>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type >>>>> of >>>>> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the >>>>> data model does not enforce this relationship. >>>>> >>>> Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a >>>> discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was >>>> discussed and decided on a long time ago. >>>> >>>> A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells >>>> stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an >>>> affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing. >>>> >>>> The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and >>>> meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking >>>> at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be >>>> confused. >>>> >>>> They are not really equivalent terms. >>>>>> >>>>> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they >>>>> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier. >>>>> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or >>>>> complex than it already is. >>>>> >>>> There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's >>>> two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be >>>> over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need >>>> different words, and have them. >>>> >>>> Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder >>>> people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is >>>> admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and >>>> inconsistent, so this is understandable. >>>> >>>> I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more >>>> careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>> -- Best Carsten Schinzer Plankstettenstr. 7 80638 München Germany
