Re: [ubl-l10n] [IDD] Cost Centre (cbc:AccountingCost)

[Jon Bosak <bosak@ibiblio.org>]

Roberto Cisternino wrote:
> Hello Jon,
> it seems the UBL 2.0 Errata 01 is not including the Cost Centre definition
> change (see cbc:AccountingCost) for all invoice types.
> 
> The 6.15 fix (about cbc:AccountingCost) should be applied to all invoicing
> documents: self-invoices, credit note, ... so on.
> 
> I would suggest to update the IDD now, even if the Model is not updated yet.

I'm sorry, but we can't do that.  The IDD consists of translations
of an approved OASIS Standard (UBL 2.0 as corrected in Errata 01).
Those translations have to reflect the text of the Standard, even
if it is wrong.

As I said in a TC call a few months ago: this is not the last
error you will find in UBL, even in the corrected version. Nothing
as big as UBL will ever be completely free from errors; it just
doesn't happen. We will be releasing another version long before
that point is reached.  So the goal is not to release a completely
error-free set of translations; the goal is to release a set of
translations that conform as closely as possible to the original.

This may seem like a strange position to take when the error is
right in front of us, but that's how it works in localization. If
you start to make changes to the localized versions independent of
the original, you run into problems similar to what happens if you
start forking a code base -- you get versioning chaos.  Better to
note the correction and work it into the next revision (2.1).

There is a scheduling aspect to this, too: as long as we keep
making changes to the translations, we cannot release them into
the public review process.  We are almost a year behind in
releasing the IDD due to the Update; we can't keep doing this.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent the LSCs from noting the
error in text that accompanies the translation.  They could even
put it right into the cell containing the definition, something
like "[This definition is in error and is expected to be corrected
in UBL 2.1. It should read xxxxx...]."  But this is a decision to
be made by the individual LSCs.

Jon