new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer request to
an employee group, to be processed.

Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can relate
to employees over the partyRelationship entity. 

anybody any objections or a better suggestion?

Regards,
Hans

Re: new field in CustomerRequestType?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>]

On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

>
> Jacopo,
>
> what i want to be able to do is, is to list customer requests which  
> need
> to be handled by a certain internal department depending on the  
> customer
> request type. Can you explain how can i do this with what you propose
> below?
>

What I have described would be one of the many solutions for this, not  
the best one probably, just the first I could think of.

> can you also tell me your objections of adding the field 'partyId' to
> the 'customer request type' entity?
>

It just seems to me an hack for a very customer specific requirement,  
and I am not sure it is worth of a data model change.
For example, why mapping a department to a request type, and not, for  
example, to the CustRequestCategory or to the customer (or its  
classification)?
By the way, I don't want to be picky, it seems to me that having that  
field there would be counter-intuitive but maybe it is just me...

Regards,

Jacopo




> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:05 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jacopo, this template could be a possibility, you want to  
>>> create a
>>> new entity for that because it should be stored in the database so  
>>> the
>>> user can modify it?
>>
>> I think you could simply store it in as a 'special' CustRequest (and
>> related entities).
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>>
>>> however one single partyId would already be enough. We can then use
>>> the
>>> partRelationship entity to expand that partyId(=department) into a
>>> group.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:38 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you for your attention but where should i record that a
>>>>> certain
>>>>> customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?
>>>>>
>>>>> examples:
>>>>> customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
>>>>> customer request type:  "request for support" => support  
>>>>> department.
>>>>> etc....
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking you could use custom code in the service attached
>>>> using
>>>> ECA (also custom).
>>>> Maybe you could create some template requests (one for every type  
>>>> of
>>>> request) and set for them all the default roles you want to attach;
>>>> then the service triggered by ECA could copy values from them.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to
>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>> add records to the CustRequestRole....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request
>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>> created.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType
>>>>>>> entity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed)
>>>>>>>> define a
>>>>>>>> special role for this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer
>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> an employee group, to be processed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
>>>>>>>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> relate
>>>>>>>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: new field in CustomerRequestType?

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

Jacopo,

what i want to be able to do is, is to list customer requests which need
to be handled by a certain internal department depending on the customer
request type. Can you explain how can i do this with what you propose
below?

can you also tell me your objections of adding the field 'partyId' to
the 'customer request type' entity?

Regards,
Hans

On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:05 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Jacopo, this template could be a possibility, you want to create a
> > new entity for that because it should be stored in the database so the
> > user can modify it?
> 
> I think you could simply store it in as a 'special' CustRequest (and  
> related entities).
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> >
> > however one single partyId would already be enough. We can then use  
> > the
> > partRelationship entity to expand that partyId(=department) into a
> > group.
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:38 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jacopo,
> >>>
> >>> thank you for your attention but where should i record that a  
> >>> certain
> >>> customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?
> >>>
> >>> examples:
> >>> customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
> >>> customer request type:  "request for support" => support department.
> >>> etc....
> >>
> >> I was thinking you could use custom code in the service attached  
> >> using
> >> ECA (also custom).
> >> Maybe you could create some template requests (one for every type of
> >> request) and set for them all the default roles you want to attach;
> >> then the service triggered by ECA could copy values from them.
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to
> >>>>> automatically
> >>>>> add records to the CustRequestRole....
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i  
> >>>>> want
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request
> >>>>> gets
> >>>>> created.....
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType
> >>>>> entity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed)
> >>>>>> define a
> >>>>>> special role for this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer
> >>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> an employee group, to be processed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
> >>>>>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which  
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> relate
> >>>>>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>]

On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

>
> Hi Jacopo, this template could be a possibility, you want to create a
> new entity for that because it should be stored in the database so the
> user can modify it?

I think you could simply store it in as a 'special' CustRequest (and  
related entities).

Jacopo

>
> however one single partyId would already be enough. We can then use  
> the
> partRelationship entity to expand that partyId(=department) into a
> group.
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:38 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> thank you for your attention but where should i record that a  
>>> certain
>>> customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?
>>>
>>> examples:
>>> customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
>>> customer request type:  "request for support" => support department.
>>> etc....
>>
>> I was thinking you could use custom code in the service attached  
>> using
>> ECA (also custom).
>> Maybe you could create some template requests (one for every type of
>> request) and set for them all the default roles you want to attach;
>> then the service triggered by ECA could copy values from them.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to
>>>>> automatically
>>>>> add records to the CustRequestRole....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i  
>>>>> want
>>>>> to
>>>>> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request
>>>>> gets
>>>>> created.....
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType
>>>>> entity?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed)
>>>>>> define a
>>>>>> special role for this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer
>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> an employee group, to be processed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
>>>>>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which  
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> relate
>>>>>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

Hi Jacopo, this template could be a possibility, you want to create a
new entity for that because it should be stored in the database so the
user can modify it?
 however one single partyId would already be enough. We can then use the
partRelationship entity to expand that partyId(=department) into a
group.

On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 11:38 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Jacopo,
> >
> > thank you for your attention but where should i record that a certain
> > customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?
> >
> > examples:
> > customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
> > customer request type:  "request for support" => support department.
> > etc....
> 
> I was thinking you could use custom code in the service attached using  
> ECA (also custom).
> Maybe you could create some template requests (one for every type of  
> request) and set for them all the default roles you want to attach;  
> then the service triggered by ECA could copy values from them.
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to
> >>> automatically
> >>> add records to the CustRequestRole....
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
> >>
> >>
> >>> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i want
> >>> to
> >>> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request  
> >>> gets
> >>> created.....
> >>
> >> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType  
> >>> entity?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>
> >>>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed)  
> >>>> define a
> >>>> special role for this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer  
> >>>>> request
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> an employee group, to be processed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
> >>>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can
> >>>>> relate
> >>>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>]

On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

>
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> thank you for your attention but where should i record that a certain
> customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?
>
> examples:
> customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
> customer request type:  "request for support" => support department.
> etc....

I was thinking you could use custom code in the service attached using  
ECA (also custom).
Maybe you could create some template requests (one for every type of  
request) and set for them all the default roles you want to attach;  
then the service triggered by ECA could copy values from them.

Jacopo


>
> Hans
>
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to
>>> automatically
>>> add records to the CustRequestRole....
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
>>
>>
>>> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i want
>>> to
>>> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request  
>>> gets
>>> created.....
>>
>> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType  
>>> entity?
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>
>>>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed)  
>>>> define a
>>>> special role for this?
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer  
>>>>> request
>>>>> to
>>>>> an employee group, to be processed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
>>>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can
>>>>> relate
>>>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

Hi Jacopo,

thank you for your attention but where should i record that a certain
customerrequesttype is handled by which employees?

examples:
customer request type:  "request for quote" => sales department.
customer request type:  "request for support" => support department.
etc....
Hans


On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 06:35 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> >
> > Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to  
> > automatically
> > add records to the CustRequestRole....
> >
> 
> Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.
> 
> 
> > at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i want  
> > to
> > change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request gets
> > created.....
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType entity?
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >> Hi Hans,
> >>
> >> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed) define a
> >> special role for this?
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer request
> >>> to
> >>> an employee group, to be processed.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
> >>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can
> >>> relate
> >>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
> >>>
> >>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>]

On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

>
> Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to  
> automatically
> add records to the CustRequestRole....
>

Yes, and you could use a SECA for this.


> at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i want  
> to
> change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request gets
> created.....

Sorry but I don't understand this sentence :-(

Jacopo


>
>
> so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType entity?
>
> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed) define a
>> special role for this?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer request
>>> to
>>> an employee group, to be processed.
>>>
>>> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
>>> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can
>>> relate
>>> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
>>>
>>> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

Yes sure....but depending on the type of request I need to automatically
add records to the CustRequestRole....

at creation time i can add the appropriate roles however when i want to
change the allocation i have to go to all the places the request gets
created.....

so isn't is better to add a partyId to the customeRequestType entity?

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed) define a  
> special role for this?
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer request  
> > to
> > an employee group, to be processed.
> >
> > Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
> > CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can  
> > relate
> > to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
> >
> > anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> 

Re: new fied in CustomerRequestType?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>]

Hi Hans,

why don't you use the CustRequestRole entity and (if needed) define a  
special role for this?

Jacopo

On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

>
> I have a customer who wants to allocate an incoming customer request  
> to
> an employee group, to be processed.
>
> Therefore i was thinking about to add a partyId field to the
> CustomerRequestType entity. This partyId can be a group which can  
> relate
> to employees over the partyRelationship entity.
>
> anybody any objections or a better suggestion?
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>