I suggest we keep it friendly. A bit more explanation in stead of curtly sentences go a long way.
Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Adrian Crum < [email protected]> wrote: > What do party roles have to do with identifiers? > > Nothing you have said in this discussion makes any sense. I am just as > lost and confused as everyone else. What are you going on about? > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 1/15/2015 10:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> >> Le 16/01/2015 06:49, Adrian Crum a écrit : >> >>> I believe I already stated my opinion. The current data model meets >>> the requirements. >>> >>> An identifier MIGHT represent a party relationship, but it doesn't >>> ALWAYS describe a party relationship. The current data model correctly >>> represents the real world. >>> >> >> How can you see that the current data model correctly represents the >> real world, when in some cases you would need to represent a party >> relationship with roles, as you stated above. >> >> Jacques >> >> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 1/15/2015 9:42 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> For account number definition, are you referring to what Bob initially >>>> described at OFBIZ-3764? >>>> Because indeed PARTY IDENTIFICATION does not entail a party relationship >>>> (actually it entails one but it's implicit as you mentioned below) >>>> But you might want/need to describe this party relationship with roles >>>> attached to each party, this is the meaning of OFBIZ-3764. >>>> >>>> I would be very interested to have your opinion on OFBIZ-3764. Actually >>>> I'd be very interested to have as much as possible opinions. >>>> See my comment at >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3764? >>>> focusedCommentId=14276808 >>>> >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 15/01/2015 15:48, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>> >>>>> My California Drvers License number might be considered a relationship >>>>> from the DMV to me, but it is not a requirement. An internal >>>>> organization might want to assign that identification to me, but they >>>>> are not the DMV, and the assignment of that identification does not >>>>> imply I have a relationship to the internal organization. >>>>> >>>>> So, the two are separate and unrelated. Until you understand that, >>>>> this conversation will continue to go in circles. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2015 6:35 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It has everything to do with party relationships. >>>>>> >>>>>> A PartyIdentification is worth nothing when not brought in relation to >>>>>> something else via PartyRelationship (in the case of OFBiz), >>>>>> specifically >>>>>> considering the PartyIdentifications of the internal parties in >>>>>> relation to >>>>>> the external. Each internal party will have at least one per >>>>>> relationship. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if an external party is in relation with multiple internal >>>>>> parties, it >>>>>> might be so that each relationship has a different >>>>>> partyIdentification. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>> >>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Adrian Crum < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> An account number is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION - it has nothing to do >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> party relationships. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/14/2015 11:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, let's keep it "simple". Suppose you have (this is demo data + >>>>>>>> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE", I just made it even if does >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> much - if any - sense) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" >>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" >>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO" roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" >>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" >>>>>>>> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE"/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then suppose you need also (don't try to make sense to this just >>>>>>>> focus >>>>>>>> on my point) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" >>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" >>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO" roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" >>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" >>>>>>>> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you can't have both securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE" AND >>>>>>>> securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's just what I want to say. It maybe have no real interest in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> case of PartyRelationship. >>>>>>>> But Ron's request at OFBIZ-3764 would not be covered if we simply >>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>> a field to PartyRelationship to what was initially envisioned by >>>>>>>> Bob (an >>>>>>>> account number) >>>>>>>> Because Ron's request (the condo association >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium) is to have many different >>>>>>>> "account numbers" for the same parties in the the same roles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HTH >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 14/01/2015 23:54, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In order to grasp what you tried to bring across I assembled >>>>>>>>> some PoC >>>>>>>>> data. >>>>>>>>> See below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationshipType description="" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipName="Agent" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> roleTypeIdValidFrom="" roleTypeIdValidTo=""/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <!-- relations from the left side party to 2 different >>>>>>>>> parties >>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>> same role -->] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo= >>>>>>>>> "DemoCustAgent" roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" >>>>>>>>> partyIdTo="admin" >>>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <!-- the relationship of the second example with a different >>>>>>>>> fromDate >>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" >>>>>>>>> partyIdTo="admin" >>>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2010-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <!-- a party relationship reversed --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustAgent" partyIdTo= >>>>>>>>> "DemoCustCompany" roleTypeIdFrom="AGENT" roleTypeIdTo="CUSTOMER" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <!-- both parties having the same role --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="admin" partyIdTo="ltdadmin" >>>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="ltdadmin" partyIdTo="admin" >>>>>>>>> roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" >>>>>>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT" >>>>>>>>> comments="Sandbox example"/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All load perfectly well when the PartyRelationshipType doens't >>>>>>>>> have and >>>>>>>>> when parties have the roles they should have for the relationship. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you do have to explain better, because I am not getting it. >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is not what I mean Pierre, please re-read >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
