Re: SV: [ubl-psc] Rationalizing Related Document, Billing Documentan d Document Reference.

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

I hope this helps.

Note that i worked it from a version on draft 9 spreadsheets (so i could 
use the formula)  so there may be later changes not included in this model.

Peter Larsen Borresen wrote:

>Hi Tim
>
>I appreciate your diagrams but could I extend your task to also express this
>in a Spreadsheet, marked with a color?
>
>/Peter
>
>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
>Sendt: 6. december 2005 06:38
>Til: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
>Emne: [ubl-psc] Rationalizing Related Document, Billing Document and
>Document Reference.
>
>
>On Monday's PSC call I was given the task to rationalize the various 
>ways we have used to relate documents to other documents.  This was 
>because it appeared that we had several structures for performing 
>similar functions.
>
>The main issue was why we had Related Document and Billing Document when 
>both had a similar set of associations.  (see attached 
>DocumentreferenceCurrent class diagram)
>
>The way I approached this was to recognize that we had Invoice Line, 
>Debit Line and Credit Line (aka the Billing Documents) that may 
>reference other documents.  We also had Statement Line and Remittance 
>Line (the advisory documents) that may also reference other documents.
>
>My rationalization (see attached class diagram)  was primarily to  
>rename "Related Document" to be "Accounting Document Reference" and 
>combine this with the old "Billing Document" structure.  In effect 
>Accounting Document Reference is an extension of Document Reference for 
>"accounting" documents.  The qualification of what type of accounting 
>document is then given by the name of the role in the association to 
>Document Reference.
>
>Some other effects of this were:
>* "Related Document Line" becomes "Accounting Document Reference Line"
>* By creating two possible associations to "Accounting Document 
>Reference Line" (one called Debit and one called Credit) we dont need to 
>DebitLine or CreditLine in the Remittance Advice Line or the Statement 
>Line.  This is because these documents are reflecting (or summarizing) 
>the accounting transactions of the Accounting Document Reference.  Their 
>'amounts' are duplications of those other values.
>* Line Reference may associate with either a Document Reference or an 
>Accounting Document Reference. 
>
>Overall, this gives us a symmetry with the way both billing documents 
>and advisory documents show references to other documents and their 
>transactions.
>
>If no-one has any objections to this  then perhaps Peter can build it 
>into draft 11 for review of Friday's call?
>
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
http://www.docengineering.com/

UBL-DocumentReference-2.0-20051206.xls