At the core, most business systems deal with Parties and how they interact with each other. There are other things that we model within a business system. But pretty much it comes down to Parties and Transactions:
- A Customer makes a Purchase of a Product from a Retailer
- A Supplier sends a Shipment of a Parcel to a Consignee at a Location
- A Student creates an Enrollment in a Class taught by a Professor
- A Doctor makes a Diagnosis on a Patient
- A Customer makes a Payment to a Provider
- A Candidate submits an Application for a Job at an Employer
Notice that each transaction has two parties participating. Also notice that in most cases, the parties have a different name. Giving entities within your system meaningful names is important. It’s one of the key concepts of Domain Driven Design: the Ubiquitous Language. The down and dirty details of the Ubiquitous Language is that your technical team and your business team should speak the same language and that language should be reflected in the code. This puts the onus on developers to learn the business speak (despite how funny Dilbert makes business speak sound). What it boils down to is that when you capture a concept from your requirements gathering, use the same word the domain experts use. There is no need for translation when you do this.
Also noteworthy that the Transactions are Nouns not verbs. Traditionally, when first being introduced to object design, we learn that Nouns are Classes and Verbs are Functions. We specifically made the transactions in our models nouns. A simplistic way of describing the transactions would have been :
- A Customer purchases a Product from a Retailer
- A Supplier ships a Parcel to a Consignee at a Location
- A Student enrolls in a Class taught by a Professor
- A Doctor diagnoses a Patient
- A Customer pays a Provider
- A Candidate applies for a Job at an Employer
Rather than representing the transactions as separate entities we are implying the transactions are simple functions on the entities involved in them. We’re losing some of the resolution of our model. An even more naive model follows:
- A Party purchases a Product from a Party
- A Party ships a Parcel to a Party at a Location
- A Person enrolls in a Class taught by a Person
- A Person diagnoses a Person
- A Party pays a Party
- A Person applies for a Job at an Organization
In the end, there is always a person or organization involved in transactions. But these parties have specific roles within the transaction. What’s more is that the same party might play different roles within different transactions. For instance, in a two ended retail system (think Amazon), it’s possible for me to be a customer in one purchase and a retailer in another. By separating the Roles from the Parties playing them, I’m able to distinguish between the two and I won’t overload my Party object with responsibilities. I know that the responsibility of the Customer is to make a Purchase.
So far we’ve covered three of the four archetypes in Color Modeling, the Party/Place/Thing (Parcel is a thing, location is a Location), the Role, and the Transaction. Actually I lied. We covered all four in a blink and you missed it moment. The Product in the Purchase transaction is not a Thing…not in our archetypal definition. The Product is actually a Description. If I purchase Assassin’s Creed for the Xbox from Amazon, yes I receive a physical thing. But that individual item is no different to the system than the hundreds of other copies of Assassin’s Creed for the Xbox Amazon might have in any of their dozens of warehouses. They are for all practical purposes fungible. That Product is an example of the Description Archetype. When the system cares about the identity of a specific item, like a VIN for a vehicle or a Serial Number for a Console, it becomes a Thing. The Parcel is a thing because it has a Tracking Number and is not fungible with other parcels being shipped.