fine grained party
Locked
 
|
Hi,
I am trying to get party entries to be a little more fine grained. For now it seems like there are only two types in use 'person' & 'partygroup'. The view profile reflects this difference. However, I would like to control it some more based on whether the party person is primarily an employee or contractor etc. Which is a better option to go about the same? a) Use roles to distinguish between different types. This may cause integrity problems since any workflow based on roles may break if the roles are changed down the line. b) Use the partyTypeId to distinguish. This seems like a cleaner approach. However, I am unable to find out how and where partyTypeId is set. I would expect to extend person with sub types as employee, contractor etc, say as below <PartyType description="Employee" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PERSON" partyTypeId="EMPLOYEE"/> <PartyType description="Contractor" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PERSON" partyTypeId="CONTRACTOR"/> Looking for some inputs/suggestions. Thanks Arays |
|
|
How would this handle a Party that is in multiple roles, as the current model does? -David On Saturday, October 03, 2009, at 12:03PM, "ARays" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >Hi, > >I am trying to get party entries to be a little more fine grained. For now >it seems like there are only two types in use 'person' & 'partygroup'. The >view profile reflects this difference. However, I would like to control it >some more based on whether the party person is primarily an employee or >contractor etc. Which is a better option to go about the same? >a) Use roles to distinguish between different types. This may cause >integrity problems since any workflow based on roles may break if the roles >are changed down the line. >b) Use the partyTypeId to distinguish. This seems like a cleaner approach. >However, I am unable to find out how and where partyTypeId is set. I would >expect to extend person with sub types as employee, contractor etc, say as >below > > <PartyType description="Employee" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PERSON" >partyTypeId="EMPLOYEE"/> > <PartyType description="Contractor" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PERSON" >partyTypeId="CONTRACTOR"/> > >Looking for some inputs/suggestions. > >Thanks >Arays >-- >View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/fine-grained-party-tp25731734p25731734.html >Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > |
|
|
ah! there definitely is a catch. However, if one were to have a base/principal role/purpose (sort of their primary which is not expected to change) then one can base some workflows on that.. To share my scenario, I am looking to use ofbiz for back office use where the workflow changes quite dramatically for employees vs contractors. They can obviously play different roles such as sales clerk, manager, accountant etc, but the way they are compensated for example is different. Not sure if that makes sense in the context of ofbiz, but I am looking at ways to support such a scenario. For example in PartyMgr Orders makes sense for customers, but may not as much for employees and my intent is to have context specific (primary purpose of their engagement) viewprofiles and be able to extend the datamodel appropriately for each segment of user.
As I mentioned I did consider using roles to differentiate, but then the challenge may be that down the line someone might change or drop roles which can complicate matters. The idea is to treat the primary purpose much like the 'sex of a person' which is not expected to change in most cases if not all ;-) - Arays
|
|
|
BTW, the seed data that prompted me to start thinking on these lines is below
<PartyType description="Informal Group" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PARTY_GROUP" partyTypeId="INFORMAL_GROUP"/> <PartyType description="Family" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="INFORMAL_GROUP" partyTypeId="FAMILY"/> <PartyType description="Team" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="INFORMAL_GROUP" partyTypeId="TEAM"/> <PartyType description="Legal Organization" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PARTY_GROUP" partyTypeId="LEGAL_ORGANIZATION"/> <PartyType description="Corporation" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="LEGAL_ORGANIZATION" partyTypeId="CORPORATION"/> <PartyType description="Government Agency" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="LEGAL_ORGANIZATION" partyTypeId="GOVERNMENT_AGENCY"/> I am still searching if some of the sub types are used in some ways in ofbiz. - Arays
|
|
|
In reply to this post by aray
Some more food for thought: not only should you not have a primary role for a user, you should never even look at the role of a user on its own... roles should be used to describe a relationship between a party and something else in the system (another party, a product, a task, an order, etc, etc). That should solve your workflow problem... -David On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:59 PM, ARays wrote: > > ah! there definitely is a catch. However, if one were to have a > base/principal role/purpose (sort of their primary which is not > expected to > change) then one can base some workflows on that.. To share my > scenario, I > am looking to use ofbiz for back office use where the workflow > changes quite > dramatically for employees vs contractors. They can obviously play > different > roles such as sales clerk, manager, accountant etc, but the way they > are > compensated for example is different. Not sure if that makes sense > in the > context of ofbiz, but I am looking at ways to support such a > scenario. For > example in PartyMgr Orders makes sense for customers, but may not as > much > for employees and my intent is to have context specific (primary > purpose of > their engagement) viewprofiles and be able to extend the datamodel > appropriately for each segment of user. > > As I mentioned I did consider using roles to differentiate, but then > the > challenge may be that down the line someone might change or drop > roles which > can complicate matters. The idea is to treat the primary purpose > much like > the 'sex of a person' which is not expected to change in most cases > if not > all ;-) > > - Arays > > > > David E Jones-4 wrote: >> >> >> How would this handle a Party that is in multiple roles, as the >> current >> model does? >> >> -David >> >> >> On Saturday, October 03, 2009, at 12:03PM, "ARays" <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am trying to get party entries to be a little more fine grained. >>> For now >>> it seems like there are only two types in use 'person' & >>> 'partygroup'. The >>> view profile reflects this difference. However, I would like to >>> control it >>> some more based on whether the party person is primarily an >>> employee or >>> contractor etc. Which is a better option to go about the same? >>> a) Use roles to distinguish between different types. This may cause >>> integrity problems since any workflow based on roles may break if >>> the > roles >>> are changed down the line. >>> b) Use the partyTypeId to distinguish. This seems like a cleaner >>> approach. >>> However, I am unable to find out how and where partyTypeId is set. >>> I would >>> expect to extend person with sub types as employee, contractor >>> etc, say as >>> below >>> >>> <PartyType description="Employee" hasTable="N" >>> parentTypeId="PERSON" >>> partyTypeId="EMPLOYEE"/> >>> <PartyType description="Contractor" hasTable="N" >>> parentTypeId="PERSON" >>> partyTypeId="CONTRACTOR"/> >>> >>> Looking for some inputs/suggestions. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Arays >>> -- >>> View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/fine-grained-party-tp25731734p25731734.html >>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/fine-grained-party-tp25731734p25734851.html > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
Agreed roles should be configurable describing the roles party would play within the system. However, my requirement is more closer to Identity of the person and an implied role (cannot be changed). To pick on the same contractor example, a subtype of person, the compensation of the person is very different from employees another subtype. Assumption, contractor cannot become employee. They both can play the same roles which makes it hard to distinguish workflows based on roles alone. Some more researching and I find party classification could be a way besides party types and I am wondering which is one is better suited. Differentiation is not just in workflow but presentation as well. Since fundamentally as I mentioned it is part of identity of the person, a subtype seemed appropriate. Looking for suggestions. I am looking at the same reasons which led to having 'party group' and 'person' as types within partymgr.
- Arays
|
|
|
Before you get too far into this, you should get The Data Model Resource
Book - which explains in great detail why the Party entities are set up the way they are. Once you have a clear understanding of why it is designed that way, you will have a clearer picture of how to reach your goals. For instance, you would know that contractor is not a subtype of person. It is a role. A contractor could be a person (freelance contractor) or a party group (contracting company). Also keep in mind that a person could be an employee AND a contractor. Where I work we have people like that. As an employee, they punch a time clock and get paid a wage. During their "off time" they do side work for the company and bill the company as a contractor. -Adrian ARays wrote: > Agreed roles should be configurable describing the roles party would play > within the system. However, my requirement is more closer to Identity of the > person and an implied role (cannot be changed). To pick on the same > contractor example, a subtype of person, the compensation of the person is > very different from employees another subtype. Assumption, contractor cannot > become employee. They both can play the same roles which makes it hard to > distinguish workflows based on roles alone. Some more researching and I find > party classification could be a way besides party types and I am wondering > which is one is better suited. Differentiation is not just in workflow but > presentation as well. Since fundamentally as I mentioned it is part of > identity of the person, a subtype seemed appropriate. Looking for > suggestions. I am looking at the same reasons which led to having 'party > group' and 'person' as types within partymgr. > > - Arays > > > David E Jones-4 wrote: >> >> Some more food for thought: not only should you not have a primary >> role for a user, you should never even look at the role of a user on >> its own... roles should be used to describe a relationship between a >> party and something else in the system (another party, a product, a >> task, an order, etc, etc). >> >> That should solve your workflow problem... >> >> -David >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:59 PM, ARays wrote: >> >>> ah! there definitely is a catch. However, if one were to have a >>> base/principal role/purpose (sort of their primary which is not >>> expected to >>> change) then one can base some workflows on that.. To share my >>> scenario, I >>> am looking to use ofbiz for back office use where the workflow >>> changes quite >>> dramatically for employees vs contractors. They can obviously play >>> different >>> roles such as sales clerk, manager, accountant etc, but the way they >>> are >>> compensated for example is different. Not sure if that makes sense >>> in the >>> context of ofbiz, but I am looking at ways to support such a >>> scenario. For >>> example in PartyMgr Orders makes sense for customers, but may not as >>> much >>> for employees and my intent is to have context specific (primary >>> purpose of >>> their engagement) viewprofiles and be able to extend the datamodel >>> appropriately for each segment of user. >>> >>> As I mentioned I did consider using roles to differentiate, but then >>> the >>> challenge may be that down the line someone might change or drop >>> roles which >>> can complicate matters. The idea is to treat the primary purpose >>> much like >>> the 'sex of a person' which is not expected to change in most cases >>> if not >>> all ;-) >>> >>> - Arays >>> >>> >>> >>> David E Jones-4 wrote: >>>> >>>> How would this handle a Party that is in multiple roles, as the >>>> current >>>> model does? >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, October 03, 2009, at 12:03PM, "ARays" <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to get party entries to be a little more fine grained. >>>>> For now >>>>> it seems like there are only two types in use 'person' & >>>>> 'partygroup'. The >>>>> view profile reflects this difference. However, I would like to >>>>> control it >>>>> some more based on whether the party person is primarily an >>>>> employee or >>>>> contractor etc. Which is a better option to go about the same? >>>>> a) Use roles to distinguish between different types. This may cause >>>>> integrity problems since any workflow based on roles may break if >>>>> the >>> roles >>>>> are changed down the line. >>>>> b) Use the partyTypeId to distinguish. This seems like a cleaner >>>>> approach. >>>>> However, I am unable to find out how and where partyTypeId is set. >>>>> I would >>>>> expect to extend person with sub types as employee, contractor >>>>> etc, say as >>>>> below >>>>> >>>>> <PartyType description="Employee" hasTable="N" >>>>> parentTypeId="PERSON" >>>>> partyTypeId="EMPLOYEE"/> >>>>> <PartyType description="Contractor" hasTable="N" >>>>> parentTypeId="PERSON" >>>>> partyTypeId="CONTRACTOR"/> >>>>> >>>>> Looking for some inputs/suggestions. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Arays >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/fine-grained-party-tp25731734p25731734.html >>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/fine-grained-party-tp25731734p25734851.html >>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |