My
proposal where for invoice use, but if we can argues that it does not make sense
that I will redraw my proposal. I makes things a lot less complicated. We have
no intension of using thin in Demark I was just worried that there where
functionallity in UBL 1.0 that we have talken out because we did not understood
it.
Kind
regards
Peter
Tim,
To the best of my knowledge, the PSC questions about base
price are for the following documents:
-
Order
-
Order Change
-
Order Response
-
Order Cancellation
-
Quotation
-
Request for Quotation
-
Catalogue
-
Catelogue Request
-
Catelogue Pricing Update
I agree with you that for the invoice a variable base
price based on quantities does not make sense.
MinimumAmount and MaximumAmount are frequently used in
manufacturing, consumer product goods, and retail for the sale of
commodity items where it does not make sense to sell 5 bolts at 2 cents or you
want to limit the quantity ordered by price instead of quantity.
Regards,
Sylvia
I am not sure we are understanding each other on this
matter.
When you are sending someone an Invoice you tell them the price
(or in the case of an Order, nominating a price). It is always fixed at
this point. How can you have a variable price? You know the
quantities.
Maybe what you mean by this new ABIE is what we have in
ItemLocationQuantity. It just seems you want it to be used for Invoice Line
and Line Items as well. Is that right?
NB I am still unsure about
MinimumAmount and MaximumAmount. Is this really a common way of
controlling customer spending allowances?
Peter Borresen wrote:
Hi
Tim
I
agree with you that there should only be one counting base price pr. line.
what I have proposed is that a base price can have a fixed price-amount OR a
quantity denpendend price, which is a new ABIE containing the elements we
left out (with maximumQauntity, mimimumQuantity, MinimumAmount,
MaximumAmount)
Kind regards
Peter
I agree that you may
purchase nails as you state but I thought we had decided this would be
done as 2 separate lines (as you have written them yourself).
Having made the decision last year that the cardinality for
BasePrice in its associations with Item and LineItem was 0..1 then it
makes it confusing to have MinimumQuantity and MaximumQuantity. They
could be used to express the price breaks you want in various ways. For
example...
LineItem1 = 500 nails at LineItem/BasePrice = 2 cents
(Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1, Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500,
PriceAmount= 2 cents) LineItem2 = 500 nails at LineItem/BasePrice = 1
cent (Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=500,
Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=2000, PriceAmount= 1
cent) or LineItem1 = 500 nails at
(LineItem/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1,
LineItem/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500) = 2 cents LineItem1 = 500
nails at (LineItem/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=500,
LineItem/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=2000) = 1 cent or LineItem1 =
1000 nails at LineItem/BasePrice = 1.5 cents
(Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1, Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500) and
(Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=500,
Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=2000) or (even) LineItem1 = 500 nails
at (LineItem/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1,
LineItem/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500) = 2 cents
(Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1, Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500,
PriceAmount= 2 cents) LineItem1 = 500 nails at
(LineItem/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=500,
LineItem/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=2000) = 1 cent
(Item/BasePrice/MinimumQuantity=1, Item/BasePrice/MaximumQuantity=500,
PriceAmount= 2 cents)
Furthermore, if we start adding multiple
BasePrices to line items based on quantities, then we must also add
multipel BasePrices based on locations and we end up with even more
complexity.
A better idea is to put Quantity and Location
outside the BasePrice and ensure we have only one BasePrice per pricing
unit (ie line item). Such as...
LineItem1 = 500 nails at
LineItem/BasePrice = 2 cents LineItem2 = 500 nails at
LineItem/BasePrice = 1 cent
.. and allow for a reference to a
price list or catalogue for breakdown of the pricing.
I
disagree that we did not understand the requirement so we took it out of
UBL 1.0. I was actually convinced by the argument of the Catalogue
group that the way we propose with UBL 2.0 is closer to real requirements
and will make implementations clearer.
It says in the change log
the reason given for dropping the MaximumQuantity and MinimumQuantity in
BasePrice was "Quantity is not the only parameter for a price. Could not
explain a use for it". We dropped MaximumAmount and MinimumAmount
because the idea of different pricing based on spend amount wouldn't
work this way (although we actually said "Could not explain a use for
it"). Perhaps we could improve on those reasons.
I feel a bit
guilty about this issue as, while we discussed the BasePrice cardinality
several times since last September, it does appear I removed
MinimumQuantity and MaximumQuantity at the last minute (between versions
20051210 and 20051219 of draft 12). I apologize if you had not time
to review this - it was over that chaotic time last Christmas when we were
assembling the release package. Still we are reviewing it now :-[
Peter Borresen
wrote:
Hi Tim
I have been convinsed by freddy that a baseprice can be quantity dependend.
There are cases where quantity times baseprice are not equal price (I call
this a quantity-dependend price)
If you order 1000 nails and the price for the nails are
2 cents for 1-500 nails
1 cent for 500-2000 nails
The price you get is $15 (ten dollar for the first 500 and five for the last
500). You could specify that in UBL 1.0, but we have taken that out because
we did not understood it.
In the ordering time you agree on a price, but I am convinsed that this price
could also be quantity dependend. This means that the quantity dependend
price also exists in time of billing.
Kind regrads
Peter
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sendt: 10. april 2006 01:45
Til: swebb@gefeg.com
Cc: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Emne: [ubl-psc] Dealing with Issues list was:Re: [ubl-psc] Schedule for
next conference calls
Sylvia Webb wrote:
Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to submit your comments. I hope others that
aren't able to make the calls will submit their comments about dispositions
as well.
Please note the question for you about base price in the draft minutes dated
7 April. They were uploaded to the PSC document repository.
My original comment was a bit terse. I said "BasePrice depends on
Quantity and Location. So BasePrice is within ItemLocationQuantity".
What we discussed in the Catlogue project and proposed to the PSC was:
a. There should only ever be one instance of BasePrice for an Item on an
Order or Invoice/Billing document. The buyer wil only propose one price
and the seller certainly will be unambiguous about the price per Item.
b. The only situation where an Item may have many BasePrices is in the
sourcing process and then it is not simply the Item that determines the
BasePrice but also the quantities required and the location they are
required in. So we have a new ABIE ItemLocationQuantity that says "If
you want this much of this item in this place here is the price".
It seems the proposal from Veronique suggests we invert this so
BasePrice can have multiple occurrences (dependant on quantity and maybe
location), but that would dilute the original purpose of having only one
BasePrice.
I will post revised spreadsheets to the full UBL TC listserv as they are
available.
Do you need to take a leave of absence from the PSC? I will post the
schedule for additional calls after our meeting on the 18th April.
it depends on the schedule. I am OK until the 18th.
Regards,
Sylvia
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/309 - Release Date: 11/04/2006
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
|