the BOM instead of the productId. In many scenarios,
entry. The only reason why I'm suggesting is that
alternatives. When there's a solution that encompases
the best of both worlds. Namely, simplification for
> Faucets are not serialized.
>
> Six purchasing clerks have memorized part numbers
> for commonly ordered parts.
> They're not going to like the idea of having to
> memorize new part numbers every
> time a manufacturer changes.
>
> Bill Of Materials use the same part numbers. Every
> assembly that uses a faucet
> would have to be changed when the manufacturer
> changes.
>
> I view the manufacturer of a component as a kind of
> meta data - not worth
> creating a separate product for.
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > It's obviously not my project, but I would think
> in
> > that scenario, were warranty information is
> important,
> > you would definately want to track them as
> seperate
> > products. Otherwise you're forced to create your
> > reports by custom time periods that are more prone
> to
> > innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to
> be
> > serialized? If you're going to that specificity,
> why
> > go back toward generics?
> >
> > --- Adrian Crum <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We use manufacturer information in the components
> >>that go into our homes.
> >>
> >>For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom
> sink
> >>faucet. For simplicity, we
> >>refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention
> >>of manufacturer. Depending
> >>upon the year and the current style, the bathroom
> >>sink faucet may be
> >>manufactured by different companies. This year
> it's
> >>Kohler, five years ago
> >>it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will
> >>accept only the the brand we
> >>use currently.
> >>
> >>So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we
> need
> >>to know which manufacturer
> >>was used and when. If we're sticking to a single
> >>generic product, then that
> >>means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
> >>
> >>Historical information is crucial for warranty
> >>service issues. If a homeowner
> >>calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can
> >>find out the manufacturer
> >>based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In
> >>real life the homeowner would
> >>just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but
> >>the process would apply for
> >>other items.)
> >>
> >>Is this an immediate need here? No. If the
> >>capability doesn't make it into the
> >>project before I address it here, then I'll just
> >>make the mods and contribute
> >>them back.
> >>
> >>
> >>David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model
> >>
> >>for multiple
> >>
> >>>manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be
> >>
> >>nice if it were more
> >>
> >>>directly associated with a Product... so I can
> see
> >>
> >>that being a possible
> >>
> >>>way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it
> >>
> >>would actually be used
> >>
> >>>by the people and the automated processes... Is
> >>
> >>this something that
> >>
> >>>anyone actually has a need and scenarios for
> right
> >>
> >>now?
> >>
> >>>-David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm looking over David's suggestion of using
> >>
> >>ProductCategoryRole.
> >>
> >>>>Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way
> >>
> >>- then just ignore
> >>
> >>>>the manufacturer field in Product.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ
> >>
> >>Manufacturing
> >>
> >>>>Products" then the products they manufacture
> >>
> >>could be linked to that
> >>
> >>>>category. The company itself can be linked to
> the
> >>
> >>category through the
> >>
> >>>>party ID in the role of manufacturer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Manufacturers and Suppliers are different
> >>
> >>parties, btw. A supplier
> >>
> >>>>could provide the same part from several
> >>
> >>manufacturers.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Technically, I would think you should make them
> >>
> >>two
> >>
> >>>>>separate products and then relate the two
> >>
> >>products as
> >>
> >>>>>equivelents. But of course that depends on how
> >>>>>detailed the company wants to be. Aside from
> >>
> >>making
> >>
> >>>>>them two seperate products, you could treat the
> >>>>>manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the
> same
> >>>>>generic product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>However, I can think of an example where the
> >>
> >>current
> >>
> >>>>>structure is limiting. When the manufacturer
> or
> >>>>>product line is acquired by another company.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Adrian Crum <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There are many examples of standard products
> >>
> >>that
> >>
> >>>>>>can come from multiple manufacturers. If I
> have
> >>
> >>a hardware store and
> >>
> >>>>>>I sell
> >>>>>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come
> >>
> >>from three or four
> >>
> >>>>>>different
> >>>>>>manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4
> >>
> >>inch galvanized tee
> >>
>