My feeling is to prefer the 1st version : sizes are variations of an article as colors are.
But this is not a rule... only a rule of thumb...
My 2 cts
Jacques
From: "Sven Wesley" <
[hidden email]>
> Hi all (again), further down the definition-of-words-jungle
> We're integrating Ofbiz with another system and now we've got stuck at
> Merchandise hierarchy.
>
> I see it this way:
> Merchandise hierarchy is the categories/subcategories for products, and a
> product is a variant collection. As in Ofbiz more or less.
> In my eyes this a working example:
>
> Catalog
> -Electronics
> -Clothes
> -Women
> -Trousers
> -Blouses
> -Jackets
> -Men
> -Jeans
> -Shirts
> -Underwear
>
> Under every subcategory there can be products with all the variants, in this
> example [Levis 501]-[XS,X,M,L,XL] should be connected to Men-Jeans.
> This is also how other ERP's I've been working with handles the structure.
>
>
>
> Some of my colleagues on the other hand, says that the product and the items
> also should be a part of the merchandise structure. They see the product
> _and_ variants as a part of the Merchandise hierarchy. Therefore it should
> look like this according to them:
>
> Catalog
> -Electronics
> -Clothes
> -Women
> -Trousers
> -Blouses
> -Jackets
> -Men
> -Jeans
> -Levis 501
> -XS
> -X
> -M
> -L
> -XL
> -Shirts
> -Underwear
>
> And then, the items (data object for a variant) should be connected to their
> matching subcategory. Products should then only exist as variants.
>
>
> The funny part is that both sides say that their view of the problem is
> supported by ARTS.
> I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong, but I would like to hear your
> opinion about it.
>
Locked
