RE: [ubl-dev] UBL 1.0 to UBL 2.0

["Wesling, Kai" <k.wesling@conXpert.de>]

I would like to add my comments to these questions raised.

Ad 2.: I would also like to see more possibilities to add Prices. I like the changes made to the BasePrice element, especillay the addition of the PriceType. So with this, I think the cardinality of BasePrice could be expanded to unbounded with the remark, that different Prices should be distinguished by different PriceTypes. Perhaps the PriceType could be related to a codelist (e.g. EDIFACT codelist)

Ad 5.: I also made a comment on the comments web page about this. I find it inconsistent, that each party has its own party element but there is no DeliveryParty (only a DeliveryAddress) in the Delivery element. Why is this? Even in the explanation of the Party roles the ‘Customer/Delivery’ party is explained as being some completely different party, so a connection to the originator is not always possible.

Ad 8.: ;) Regarding codelists. Will there be a list of codelists used? Regarding especially the stated codelist for the units: The PCE unit is a simple addition to the recommendation 20 made by the EANCOM specification which is often used in current EDIFACT exchanges. Would it be possible to extend the codelist used or introduce different codelists and use a codelist qualifier like in UBL 1.0

Addendum: 

- I’d like to expand the notion of the CopyIndicator or suggest an additional indicator to state that a document is a test document, which seems very important in integration of business processes. Has there been any talk over some TestIndicator Element or such like?

- The Note element has a cardinality of 1. I would like to have it a cardinality of unbounded. First you can then include notes in different languages and second one is able to include several notes which each then consist of a functional element. Additionally one could have an attribute with a NoteType so one can state which note this is. (Like FTX qualifiers in EDIFACT)

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Best regards

--  

Kai Wesling

 

________________________________

From: Véronique Testa [mailto:veronique.testa@cegedim.fr] 
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2006 11:27
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
Subject: [ubl-dev] UBL 1.0 to UBL 2.0

 

Starting with UBL 1.0 since few months, we've implemented the Invoice 1.0 as our "standard format".
I work on UBL 2.0 and more specially on migration from UBL 1.0 Invoice, compatibility, constraints. My first goal is to cover at least an equal perimeter before going forward. Good point about the new Party elements that take in account more actors in the business process.

 

First tests resulting in errors validating my output files generated with UBL 2.0 scheme, here are some questions, remarks:

 

1. Some elements are mandatory like CopyIndicator for DespachDocumentReference, ReceiptDocumentReference, OriginatorDocumentReference: What is the reason to make it mandatory ? In UBL 1.0 it was optional.  Defintion, usefull are not enough clear to decide if we have to set True or false. Globally there's too much mandatory element while these data are not useful or not used. 
2. There is no more mean to indicate for an item or a line, the price with and w/o charges (calculation gross and calculation net). Both information are required in Invoice for legal purpose (in case of allowance or charge) BasePrice in Item was Unbounded in UBL 1.0  / The BasePrice could be 1 to unbounded with a qualifier to specify more than one BasePrice..
3. How could we treat the free goods in invoice ?
4. What is the goal and definition of PartyLegalEntity ? Does it identify the legal company in case of an invoice issued by a subentity ? or /and the legal Tax Representative Party (declaring the VAT) which can be different ? 

5. There's no way (same as UBL 1.0) to provide the name of the Delivery (No Party identification). Useful
6. We used as a control the UBL 1.0 LineItemCountNumeric. It has been removed in UBL 2.0 / Is it definitive ?

7. What is the goal and definition of the element named "cbc:Qualifier" ? (from DespachDocumentReference, ReceiptDocumentReference...)

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Véronique Testa

________________________________

From: Véronique Testa [mailto:veronique.testa@cegedim.fr] 
Sent: Montag, 13. März 2006 15:25
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au
Subject: [ubl-dev] About CodeList for UnitCode

 

UBL 2.0 : Quantity (InvoicedQuantity, BaseQuantity...) is associated to the only one attribute "UnitCode". UnitCode allowed are issued from the codelist defined by UN/CEFACT Rec 20. This specification provides a good way to identify the information in multiple business situations but still for EDI traditional partner inheritance, we need to keep and transmit other codes.

 

Take for example:EDI Invoic D96a received with the following :

QTY+47:2050:PCE

QTY+52:6:PCE

...

PRI+AAB:1.518:::1:PCE

PRI+AAA:1.548:::1:PCE

 

In this exemple, the Unit is PCE  which is unknown in "CodeList_UnitCode_UNECE_7_04.xsd" . Expected or oversight ???

The syntax in UBL 1.0 output file (ie QTY+47:2050:PCE)  is  : <cbc:InvoicedQuantity quantityUnitCode="PCE">2050</cbc:InvoicedQuantity>

This syntax is not valid in UBL 2.0. To keep the compatibility I thought we will be able to use : <cbc:InvoicedQuantity unitCode="ZZ">2050</cbc:InvoicedQuantity> but where could we note that mutually code is PCE ??? 

 

Thx for help

Regards,

 

Veronique Testa