[ubl-lcsc] Decision Items for meeting of Dec 3rd - Please Review andcomment

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

In case you have been unable to download the latest normalized model 
spreadsheet, please find a copy attached. Mike has made considerable 
progress with the naming of properties and their qualifiers, but he 
needs team input to complete the job.

Please read his notes below and if you are unable to attend the call , 
make your comments to the list a.s.a.p.

> A number of lines or cells have been highlighted in orange because I 
> think these require a group decision. These will be listed below for 
> convenience, ALTHOUGH this is NO EXCUSE for the reader to do a careful 
> trawl through the whole spreadsheet. It is merely to get a QUICK 
> RESPONSE to some issues which will hold up urgent message assembly if 
> I do not get answers during the teleconference on Tuesday 3rd!


> 1Lines 22 to 27: The Associated Object Class Qualifier in these lines 
> appears to be more relevant to the Object Class rather than the 
> Associated Object Class. This is inconsistent with most other 
> association lines. Should we distinguish this somehow? See also 
> comment 18 below, which may enliven the discussion. DECISION PLEASE.
> 2Line 60: The association between Contract and Shipment is actually 
> the transport contract, I believe. Depending on the decision re Lines 
> 22-27 this line may need a change.
> 3Line 101: Is the ID here something that identifies the equipment seal 
> (since many different seals can be attached to one item of transport 
> equipment according to the spreadsheet)? Or is it the identification 
> CARRIED by the seal? If not, where is such an identification put 
> (another attribute)? Or are these all one and the same thing? 
> CLARIFICATION FOR THE CONFUSED, PLEASE
> 4Line 103: the definition brought forward from previous editions says 
> "&condition or status&". These are two distinct things so should there 
> be two appropriately named attributes. DECISION.
> 5Line 107: the definition was brought forward from previous editions. 
> But what does it actually mean? It is actually identified by the 
> source and target currencies and by that to which it is associated. 
> DECISION.
> 6Line 115: this is shown as a BIE but I think it is an association 
> between Exchange Rate and Contract if one is to be as consistent as 
> possible. DECISION.
> 7Lines 130-131: These two lines have the same problem as Lines 22-27 
> mentioned above. Depending on the decision re Lines 22-27 these lines 
> may need a change.
> 8Line 161: More of a business information question, if there is a 
> maximum, is there also a minimum in some circumstances? (I've a 
> bizarre true story behind this question altho', in the particular 
> case, specifying a minimum temp was never dreamt of until after the 
> event!) INFORMATION PLEASE.
> 9Lines 167-168: I am confused. The previous Op66 had Quantity - the 
> unit packaging quantity and PackSizeQuantity - the number of items in 
> a pack. Now we have PackQuantity - the unit packaging quantity and 
> PackSize - the number of items in a pack. These all sound like the 
> same thing to me! DECISION.
> 10Line 174 and 178: This associates Item with Item Identification. So 
> what is the ID of Item? I think this is a case when the ID of item 
> could genuinely be shown as 1..n, and imported on message assembly as 
> specific id's such as Buyer's Item Id, Seller's Item Id etc. This has 
> a consistency with the way Party is specialised at assembly time. If 
> we adopted this approach here we would render ItemIdentification 
> unnecessary as a separate object (see also next comment). DECISION.
> 11Line 176 and 179: The Item Measurement and Physical Attribute are 
> both intended as extensions to the means by which an item is uniquely 
> identified. Measurement, for example, allows specification of a length 
> of a particular profile of material such as wood, extrusions etc when 
> only the profile is identified by the code. This measurement length is 
> the 'piece-length' and not the quantity or total length ordered. As a 
> consequence of the decision for lines 174 and 178, we either need to 
> move 176 to be within Item Identification or 179 to be within Item.
> 12Line 196: Language appears to be self-associating (the politest way 
> of phrasing it!). Is this a typo or is there a reason? DECISION.
> 13Lines 219-223: These seem to be attributes that we could more 
> usefully and sensibly associate with Shipment. DECISION.
> 14Line 224: I think we agreed to remove Language (i.e. stating what 
> language the order is in) from the order. CONFIRM.
> 15Line 225: I think we agreed to remove Exchange Rate from the order 
> as it is not relevant until the Invoicing stage. CONFIRM.
> 16Line 239: More a question about business information. If there is a 
> maximum back order quantity, is it possible that there is also a 
> minimum back order quantity? ENLIGHTENED ADVICE, PLEASE.
> 17Line 251: Marked up because I need to think around the concept of 
> substitution/replacement a bit more.
> 18Line 259: It suddenly occurred to me that we need more clarity here. 
> The association of Package to Composite Package does not give any clue 
> about which is the outer and which is the inner. I made an assumption 
> that the object was the outer, and the associated object the inner, 
> then modified the definition accordingly. But of course there is also 
> the association between Package and Package that goes the other way, 
> so we ought really to list and define that here as well. So how would 
> we show this in the spreadsheet, bearing in mind the need to record 
> that it is 'in the other direction? If we had two lines, the 
> qualifiers perhaps should say "is contained in" and "contains". 
> Discussion around this may help in our deliberations around Lines 22-27.
> 19Lines 268-270: More instances of the associated object class 
> qualifier being more appropriate to the object class. Needs DECISION 
> as lines 22-27 etc.
> 20Line 280: The currency in which a tax is collected is more correctly 
> an attribute of the tax scheme itself rather than a party's 
> involvement in a tax scheme. Move to Tax Scheme. AGREE?
> 21Line 284: Isn't Tax associated with Tax Scheme (and hence to 
> PartyTaxScheme) rather than directly to PartyTaxScheme? See also lines 
> 407-409, as there is no association noted from Tax to PartyTaxScheme. 
> AGREE?
> 22Line 307: I've added this as it was missing. See the definition 
> alongside line 304 which mentions a "&length of time&" although 
> previously there was no means of giving the length of time. AGREE?
> 23Line 313: This may have some bearing on the discussion for lines 22 
> -27 about the Associated Object Class Qualifier. The definition 
> mentions 'validity' period although the word does not appear in the 
> naming columns.
> 24Lines 325-328: these typify how many lines now look with the split 
> of the earlier version's Property Term into Property Term Qualifier 
> and Property Term. The Property Term is now the same as the 
> Representation Term as there is nothing else to call it. ARE WE HAPPY 
> WITH THIS?
> 25Line 337: This was associated with Tax, but I believe a Pricing 
> Component is associated with a Tax Scheme, and thence to Tax, not 
> directly. DECISION.
> 26Lines 338-339: Are these definitely different things or are they 
> actually the same thing under a different name? DECISION.
> 27Line 351: The association of these two objects does not "&constitute 
> an itemised amount for payment&". I propose deletion of this 
> unnecessary and misleading specialisation in the definition. AGREE?
> 28Line352: I propose deletion of this association as the exchange rate 
> would be specified for the transaction overall and at the invoicing 
> stage. I think we are missing "Pricing Currency" at the overall level 
> of information about the order. AGREE?
> 29Line 377: Should this association be with the Order Item (line) 
> rather than with the Item? DECISION?
> 30Line 386: This was 0..1. I think it should be 0..n. AGREE?
> 31Line 387: I think this is a case where it is correct to have an 
> Associated Object Class Qualifier, and it would be "Transport". DECISION
> 32Line 395: There is a note in the definition that says "BIE needs 
> shipment removed". What does this mean? Is the word 'shipment' 
> politically incorrect everywhere, or only here? Please clarify so that 
> we can get on! DECISION.
> 33Line 407: about the association between Tax and party. This should 
> have been resolved in decisions about Comment 21.
> 34Lines 430-431: These specify a minimum and maximum measure for a 
> Transport Equipment Measurement. However it is not clear whether these 
> are effectively specifying a tolerance around the primary measurement, 
> or an actual min and max. The definition really needs to be clear 
> about this. DECISION.
> 35In the light of the thought behind comment 34, we should review 
> other max and mins. Lines 80, 161, 186, 238, 239, 330, 332
>


-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

Attachment: normalized components11_0p70_draft0pt02..xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet