Re: Party Relationship Best Practices

Posted by BJ Freeman on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Party-Relationship-Best-Practices-tp170029p170039.html

Chris Thanks.
BTW I just got the two modeling books. So I am now trying to use the
correct terminology.
Beyond entity there is supertypes entities, subtypes (exclusive and non
exclusive)entities, Attributes, Relationships, intersection, and
Association.

 From the book Vol 1 pages 8-12
An entity, is something Significant about which the Enterprise wishes to
store information.
A subtype is a classification of an entity that has characteristics,
such as attributes or relationships in common with more general entities.
An Attribute holds a particular piece of information about the entity.
A relationship defines how two entities are associated.

rest is not from the book parse.
the relationships have foreingKeys and is defined as the presence of
another entities primary ID in a Entity. BTW silverstone does equate
tables to entities.

So with that as a frame work, what is it you are showing?



Chris Howe sent the following on 7/23/2006 1:24 PM:

> After rereading that website, it should be entity (not
> entity table) and associative entity (not relationship
> table).
>
> --- Chris Howe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Let me retract the use of the word "Object" and
>> replace it with "Entity".  I didn't use "entity"
>> initially because the mailing list has used the word
>> entity to refer to any table in the data model which
>> is broader than what I'm describing.
>>
>> Entity tables: Invoice, Product, ProductCategory,
>> BillingAccount, etc
>>
>> differs from Relationship tables
>> Relationship tables: InvoiceRole,
>> ProductCategoryRole,
>> BillingAccountRole, etc.
>>
>> All of the tables that end in "Role" describe the
>> relationship between the prefix Entity (ie
>> InvoiceRole, the prefix is Inovice) and the entity
>> "Party".
>>
>>
>> This site is similar to how I understand the actual
>> semantics of this type of discussion.  If it will
>> make
>> it easier, I will use word choice from it.
>>
> http://www.utexas.edu/its/windows/database/datamodeling/
>> --- BJ Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I know that means something to you, but does not
>>> convey much to me.
>>> At least as far as how you see Objects in
>> Entities.
>>> At this point not trying to get into weather they
>>> should or should not
>>> be changed, just the semantics.
>>>
>>> Chris Howe sent the following on 7/23/2006 8:56
>> AM:
>>>> ie BillingAccountRole, ProductCategoryRole,
>>>> BudgetRole, InvoiceRole, etc
>>>>
>>>> --- BJ Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When I read about "OBJECT", from a programming
>>> point
>>>>> of view, I have an
>>>>> entirely different perspective than the Entity
>>>>> Definition In the Data
>>>>> model books they are based on.
>>>>>
>>>>> So could you define your terms, maybe give an
>>>>> example of what this is about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would help for clearer communication, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Howe sent the following on 7/22/2006
>> 11:38
>>> PM:
>>>>>> In the wiki http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/ZAE , I
>> have
>>>>>> listed all of the entities that do not comply
>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>>> ObjectRole entity approach of showing a
>>>>> relationship
>>>>>> between a party and an object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of these implementations may be just
>> fine.
>>>>> Some
>>>>>> of the implementations may have been done
>> before
>>>>>> utilization of the ObjectRole type of entity.
>>>>> Some of
>>>>>> these entities may not make sense to use the
>>>>>> ObjectRole approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever the case, I would appreciate any
>>> feedback
>>>>> on
>>>>>> each of these entities that knowledgable
>> people
>>>>> can
>>>>>> offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once it is determined that the ObjectRole
>> entity
>>>>> would
>>>>>> be a better approach for an entity, we can
>> make
>>> a
>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>> issue for it and tackle the upgrade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks all!
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>