Table View : have separate columns for User Groups sub-types

Hi @Gauthier,

How are you assigning a Digital Product to its Group of Products and to its Organization? Are you using a relation, and if so, which one?

If you do it via a relation, you need to show that relation in the table view with the Eye symbol. But honestly I am not sure if you selected the right modeling approach here. Happy to discuss - this exact question will also be a key topic in our next Customer Community meeting (Meta Model v4 - How to model Products and Organizations within the new Meta Model?)

If you like, I can send you an invitation.

Hello @Thomas Schreiner 

Thanks a lot for your answer. Yes I would be interested by the next Customer Community meeting, if I’m available (I’m on holidays the next 2 weeks).

To answer your question. We have define several subtype of “User groups” : 

• Jobs / user Roles : imported from HR referential, to have the “official” list of jobs 
• Organisation : describe the Decathlon Domains (kind of Business Units) : Supply chain, Finance, Human Resources, …
• Group of Products : are childs of Organisation ; describe product teams
• Country

Each digital product (fact sheet application in our context, as we began before meta model V4) has User Groups relations , that are a mix of the previous subtypes. 

But by that way, in a table view I’m not able to separate the subtype in differents columns : 

If there’s a better way to modelize, I will be very happy to have your recommendation.

Thanks in advance

Hi @Gauthier,

Thanks, this explains the problem very well.

The main issue is that there is just one relation type for different semantical relations (DP to GoP, DP to Jobs/User Role).

I can see various solutions, each with a different set of advantages and disadvantages:

• Using 2 relation types instead of one. With this approach, you extend the meta model by another relation between Application and UserGroup, and you split up all relations accordingly. Like relApplicationToGroupOfProducts and relApplicationToJobsUserRole, if that makes sense.
• Moving one of the two structures into Tags or SingleSelect / MultiSelect fields. This will make reporting a bit „different“ from how it is today, but depending on your use cases it might still work.
• Moving one of the two structures into a separate fact sheet type: This will make all relations more explicit and solve the problem with contradicting semantics, but it will increase the complexity of your workspace.

There might be more solutions, but this could be enough to start moving in the right direction.

I will in get in touch via direct message regarding the invitation.

Hi @Thomas Schreiner ,

thanks for your quick answer !

I’m going to test them in sandbox, to see which solution could fit best for us.

Hi @Thomas Schreiner 

I didn’t succeed with the first proposal : using 2 relations

After created the relation (to UserGroup FactSheet), in the Digital Product factsheet, the field is empty… strange  

Moreover, is there a way to filter on a specific sub-type ?

Thanks

Gauthier

Maybe I didn’t explain it well enough - written communication is hard 

If you create a new relation type, it will be empty from the beginning. You can either manually move all GroupOfProducts relations (or JobsUserRole) to the new relation type by deleting them and re-creating them in the section for the new relation, or you can do it via a script. If you like, we can have a quick 1:1 meeting and I show you how I would do it myself. I will be out-of-office until August 21st, so we could talk after that, if that works for you.

ok let’s see that in september (because I’m off from this evening until 3rd of september)

Thanks for your help

Hi @Thomas Schreiner ,

Could you please, send me this invitation (next Customer Community meeting (Meta Model v4 - How to model Products and Organizations within the new Meta Model?))?

Hi @Michele Giovanni, I will add you to my invitation list. Can you please send me your e-mail address via direct message? Thanks.