Re: [ubl-psc] Fwd: Re: [ubl-comment] Comments on UBL 2.1 release PRD2

[Jon Bosak <bosak@pinax.com>]

Thanks very much for this, Arianna.

Arianna Brutti wrote:
>>> Joao.FRADE-RODRIGUES@ext.ec.europa.eu wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Please find below 2 comments of the e-PRIOR project of the European
>>>> Commission on UBL 2.1 release PRD2.
>>>>
>>>> Comment on UBL-DocumentStatus
>>>> - The DocumentResponse element should be 0 or 1. If the requested
>>>> document does not exist, then no document response will be returned.
>
> Accepted.

OK.

>>>> Comment on UBL-Receipt Advice and UBL-Despatch Advice
>>>> -  UBL-ReceiptAdvice-2.1 and UBL-DespatchAdvice-2.1, UBL should
>>>> provide a message which enables the sender of these messages to
>>>> cancel them (once they have been sent). This is quite common in real
>>>> life.
>>>>
> ubl-psc needs a proposal for DiscrepancyAdvice document model. Can
> ePrior provide us with it?

I would like for PSC to address TSC's response as enunciated by Andy
Schoka last week:

/=======================================================================
| AS (speaking for TSC): With regard to the second comment
| ("UBL-ReceiptAdvice-2.1 and UBL-DespatchAdvice-2.1, UBL should
| provide a message which enables the sender of these messages to
| cancel them (once they have been sent). This is quite common in real
| life"), a question for PSC: What is the practice now with canceled
| invoices, for example?  Isn't this done at a procedural level?  We
| could define a cancellation document, but this is probably not the
| practice in transportation; more likely the procedure would be to
| send another shipping notice.  Do we need cancellation notices for
| all things or just these two things?  Maybe we need to address this
| in business rules rather than through another document type; but we
| need to know what PSC thinks of this.
\=======================================================================

Jon