Re: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures inOrder documents

[Mark Leitch <ml@tritorr.com>]

Title: Re: Statement document  was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

No, it’s up to the users to decide what they use documents for.

All I’m saying is the proper document to use for consolidated billing is the Consolidated Invoice and that the UBL supporting documentation should state that.
Equally, the proper document for ordering is the Order and not the RFQ and the proper document for crediting is a Credit Note and not an Invoice with negative amounts.

The Statement came from the OGC model (where it is definitely ‘for information only’) and the OGC/IDA submission to UBL 2.0.  How did/do UBL 0.X and 1.0 consolidated invoice users across the world cope ?

Because a) it is not a billing document and b) it is being confused with a billing document, I have suggested removing it but Denmark want it kept.  Denmark also agrees with the distinction between the Statement and the Consolidated Invoice.

Regards, M

Mark Leitch

---

From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:16:52 -0800
To: 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com>, <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: Statement document  was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Mark,

Are you saying that the PSC will not consider these other uses of the Statement?

There are many scenarios where taxes do not apply to the purchase of goods and services and a Statement is all that is needed.  

Regards,
Sylvia

---

From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:26 AM
To: Sylvia Webb; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

To me, the important word in ‘consolidated billing’ is the ‘billing’.
Billing usually means ‘demanding payment’ and/or ‘providing tax evidence’ and the proper document to use in this instance is the Invoice; known widely in this context as a ‘Consolidated Invoice’.
The most extreme extreme example of this is the Purchasing Card which effectively consolidates many Invoices from many suppliers into one billing file.  The VISA XML format for this file is ‘VGIS’ or the ‘VISA Global Invoice Standard’ recognising the fact that, although many people think of it as the card ‘statement’, it is, in fact, an Invoice; a demand from the card issuer for the card user organisation to pay monies due (and regard particular elements of the file as tax evidence).
The approach of linking Orders to Invoices at Line level accommodates the consolidated invoicing approach.
The Statement in our model is designed for information only and should not be confused with the [Consolidated] Invoice.  Anyone using the Statement for this purpose will find that it does not contain some of the elements in the real Invoice, most notably Tax.

Regards, M

Mark Leitch

---

From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:14:37 -0800
To: <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

All,

If the Statement is for information purposes only, what does a company do that uses the Statement as the only billing document?. As an example in the telecommunication industry, some very large well known providers refuse invoices and only accept statements. This is what they pay from and it may include allowances and charges. They will not pay from a document that is for information purposes only. They call this Consolidated Billing. If the Statement is for a single phone number or department and the allowance or charge applies to the total amount, it may not be possible or practical to split this at the line level.

Statement billing is also common in Professional Services industries. The Statement is sent and no invoice is generated.

Regards,
Sylvia

---

From: Peter Larsen Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:18 AM
To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; Mikkel Hippe Brun
Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Hi PSC

Mark and I had a meeting this morning and we found out that the values could have a meening in the order response, order response simple and the depatch advide (perhaps even in the receipt advice). But it they should be packaged into a RespondedQuantityTotal ABIE (or an other name e.g. document Measure) so it is more clear what they are used for.

Mark think that TaxTotal in order response should not be qualified with "proposed". He does not see the reason for qualifying it in the order either. I would like it qualified in the order with "expected" in stead of proposed.

We also found the need for clearifying that a UBL Statement is for information purpose only. I can not be used a base for billing purpose like a statemen from Euro card. Therefore we agree with Mikkel that it is a bad idea to have AllowanceCahnge on a statement

For the fore simple issues on Mikkels list we found that

-StatementDocumentReference should be removed
-Order change should have a validityPeriod
-OrderChange should have a reference to one and only one order.
-We should consider having only one order for a order cancellation or note that this is best practice.
-SellersOrderId must be changed to SalesOrderId and BuyersOrderId to ID in Order Response

/Peter

> -----Oprindelig  meddelelse-----
> Fra: Tim McGrath  [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sendt:  14. december 2005  01:55
> Til:  ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Emne: [ubl-psc]  Weights and  measures in Order documents
>
> It was questioned  why we had the  following items in the Order  ABIE.
>
>      
>  TotalPackagesQuantity  
>  GrossWeightMeasure 
>  NetWeightMeasure  
>  NetNetWeightMeasure 
>  GrossVolumeMeasure  
>  NetVolumeMeasure
> They are there because  they were inherited  in the original UBL from the xCBL Order Summary  structure.  And, to  date, no-one has challenged them.
>
> The only  past comments I could  find justifying this are:
>
>  
>  
> > This is particularly important for the  industries  like tobacco where tax is calculated on the weight of the  cigarettes rather  than on the retail  item.
> (UBL 0p65 Jan 2002)
>
> Note, that   they are not used in the UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset.  Also they  are  all optional and can be derived from the underlying Order Line Items  - they  are derivative totals.
>
> So unless we can get someone to  come up with a  justification, it looks like we may drop  these.
>
>
> -- 
> 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/