Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Let's not mix [[barcode]] and [[channel]] issues. The [[retail]] locations have no [[barcode]], they have a [[company]] that owns them and [[companies]] they work with and a classification within the chain hierarchy (sometimes) which identifies the service / product range of a particular location and naturally an address. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:35, 28 Aug 2004 (EEST) | | Let's not mix [[barcode]] and [[channel]] issues. The [[retail]] locations have no [[barcode]], they have a [[company]] that owns them and [[companies]] they work with and a classification within the chain hierarchy (sometimes) which identifies the service / product range of a particular location and naturally an adress. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:35, 28 Aug 2004 (EEST) |
| | |
| :If they really are separate, absolutely right. However they are not quite separate: Sometimes big purchasers apply their own barcodes or different packaging has different barcodes. If this is *VERY* uncommon then we can avoid mixing them, as you say. If it is even going on 5% of the time they we have to think of the barcode as the product of channel and product information at once.
| |
| | |
| :Also things like fruit and vegetables and bulk items have no packaging but instead they have stickers with numbers that vary per [[channel]] but probably not per location... We need to think about [[stickers on fruit]] very carefully.
| |
| | |
| :This is a question some [[researcher]] should be able to resolve.
| |
| | |
| :By the way it is good to get past various [[power structure]] issues and get back to real work...
| |