PartyRelationship

[Andrew Zeneski-2]

The PartyRelationship entity always confuses me, and some of the demo  
data makes it even more confusing. I see it going many ways. My  
understanding of it is:

"partyIdTo" in the role of "roleTypeIdTo" is a  
"partyRelationshipTypeId" of "partyIdFrom" in the role of  
"roleTypeIdFrom"

In the case where we have a group, say Company and a user "100" who is  
an employee:

"100" in the role of "EMPLOYEE" is a "EMPLOYMENT" of "Company" in the  
role of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"

we could also say:

"100" in the role of  "EMPLOYEE" is a "GROUP_ROLLUP" of "Company" in  
the role of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"

What about a prospective contact association? Contact's ID is 200. I  
would say this:

"200" in the role of "PROSPECT" is a "CONTACT_REL" of "100" in the  
role of "_NA_"

In both of these cases, the MEMBER is the TO and the CONTAINER is the  
FROM.

Is this everyone else's understanding as well??

Andrew

[Adrian Crum-2]

--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Andrew Zeneski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> we could also say:
>
> "100" in the role of  "EMPLOYEE" is a
> "GROUP_ROLLUP" of "Company" in the role
> of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"

or

"100 in the role of "SALES_REP" is a "EMPLOYEE" of "Company" in the role of "EMPLOYER"

More than likely the employee will also have the EMPLOYEE role, I'm just illustrating another way of looking at it.

-Adrian



     

[Andrew Zeneski-2]

Yeah, cool. My main concern was to make sure I (and anyone else for  
that matter) understands the definition of the TOs vs FROMs. :)

On May 1, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

>
> --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Andrew Zeneski <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> we could also say:
>>
>> "100" in the role of  "EMPLOYEE" is a
>> "GROUP_ROLLUP" of "Company" in the role
>> of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"
>
> or
>
> "100 in the role of "SALES_REP" is a "EMPLOYEE" of "Company" in the  
> role of "EMPLOYER"
>
> More than likely the employee will also have the EMPLOYEE role, I'm  
> just illustrating another way of looking at it.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>

[David E Jones-3]

Yes, I think this is correct. The best way to make sure is to look at  
the demo data, like the DemoOrderPeopleData.xml file and a few others  
have PartyRelationship data in them.

-David


On May 1, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Andrew Zeneski wrote:

> The PartyRelationship entity always confuses me, and some of the  
> demo data makes it even more confusing. I see it going many ways. My  
> understanding of it is:
>
> "partyIdTo" in the role of "roleTypeIdTo" is a  
> "partyRelationshipTypeId" of "partyIdFrom" in the role of  
> "roleTypeIdFrom"
>
> In the case where we have a group, say Company and a user "100" who  
> is an employee:
>
> "100" in the role of "EMPLOYEE" is a "EMPLOYMENT" of "Company" in  
> the role of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"
>
> we could also say:
>
> "100" in the role of  "EMPLOYEE" is a "GROUP_ROLLUP" of "Company" in  
> the role of "ORGANIZATION_ROLE"
>
> What about a prospective contact association? Contact's ID is 200. I  
> would say this:
>
> "200" in the role of "PROSPECT" is a "CONTACT_REL" of "100" in the  
> role of "_NA_"
>
> In both of these cases, the MEMBER is the TO and the CONTAINER is  
> the FROM.
>
> Is this everyone else's understanding as well??
>
> Andrew
>