This is an archive of the Maximo Yahoo Community. The content of this pages may be a sometimes obsolete so please check post dates.
Thanks to the community owner Christopher Wanko for providing the content.
I've just started into using Classifications to generate Item descriptions. After a few simple successes with it, I happened to need a bunch of different tape cartridges for my label maker that I had never ordered before. I decided to create the Classification and have it generate the description.
My Classification ended up being ELECTRONIC \ PRINTER \ LABELMAKER \ LBLMKRTAPE.
My problem/question is with the fact that I also made ELECTRONIC \ PRINTER \ LABELMAKER to generate the description. This classification is for a Label Maker machine, the sub-class for the tape that fits in the machine.
When it generated the descriptions for my tapes, they all started with "Label Maker, Label Maker Tape Cartridge, " -- it took the description from the LABELMAKER classification AND from the LBLMKRTAPE classification, then added the attributes from the LBLMKRTAPE classification as it should have.
For those of you using generated descriptions, do you like how it functions this way? I don't. I put in a service request with IBM and the response was
--it's working as designed
--it's been this way for a long time
--it's kinda like Windows explorer, seeing the whole path, like if you needed to know its brand or location
I'd rather see it use only the current-level classification for description generation, and if you need to have the other info then you make it an attribute. Your thoughts? I'm hoping to hear from people that like it as-is to gain perspective, and/or from people who would vote for an RFE to change it to function how I suggested above.
Travis Herron
Personally, yes, I like it the way it functions today. I see each classification as a representing a "generic" portion of a whole. The combination of the different generic components makes something unique. So I like to name mine in such a way. In your Case, I probably would have just named it TAPECARTRDG = Tape Cartridge, that way I could use it generically in several classifications (if I ever needed to). The attributes you attach are specific to that hierarchy, so you can have different attributes depending on the parentage.
Here's some examples from a transportation world that I've used in the past.
Vehicle \ Truck \ Pickup = Vehicle, Truck, Pickup, FORD, F150, 4x4, GAS, EXTENDED, DUALIE
Vehicle \ Truck \ Pickup = Vehicle, Truck, Pickup, CHEVROLET, 2500, 4x4, DIESEL, DUALIE
Vehicle \ Passenger \ Sedan = Vehicle, Passenger, Sedan, FORD, TAURUS, 4DR, 5, GAS, V6
Vehicle \ Passenger \ Van = Vehicle, Passenger, Van, FORD, ECONOLINE, 15, GAS, V8
Vehicle \ Passenger \ SUV = Vehicle, Passenger, SUV, FORD, EXPLORER, 5, GAS, V6
It's more about deciding which level you want your assets / items to share. Not sure if thi
--- Sean Clark-McCarthy
From: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Travis Herron
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:38 AM
To: MAXIMO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAXIMO List] Classifications generating descriptions
I've just started into using Classifications to generate Item descriptions. After a few simple successes with it, I happened to need a bunch of different tape cartridges for my label maker that I had never ordered before. I decided to create the Classification and have it generate the description.
My Classification ended up being ELECTRONIC \ PRINTER \ LABELMAKER \ LBLMKRTAPE.
My problem/question is with the fact that I also made ELECTRONIC \ PRINTER \ LABELMAKER to generate the description. This classification is for a Label Maker machine, the sub-class for the tape that fits in the machine.
When it generated the descriptions for my tapes, they all started with "Label Maker, Label Maker Tape Cartridge, " -- it took the description from the LABELMAKER classification AND from the LBLMKRTAPE classification, then added the attributes from the LBLMKRTAPE classification as it should have.
For those of you using generated descriptions, do you like how it functions this way? I don't. I put in a service request with IBM and the response was
--it's working as designed
--it's been this way for a long time
--it's kinda like Windows explorer, seeing the whole path, like if you needed to know its brand or location
I'd rather see it use only the current-level classification for description generation, and if you need to have the other info then you make it an attribute. Your thoughts? I'm hoping to hear from people that like it as-is to gain perspective, and/or from people who would vote for an RFE to change it to function how I suggested above.
Travis Herron