Re: [ubl-psc] Fulfilment Cancellation

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Hello, PSC!

From Jon's records I note from the discussion 
below that there are two references to "Request 
for Catalogue" that should be "Catalogue Request" 
in the documentation.  These occur on page 82 of 
the sanity check UBL-2.1-a4-20121103-0210z.pdf I posted last night.

They also are not hyperlinked, and so I have 
linked them to "Catalogue Request".

A number of other document references are also 
not hyperlinked, and so I have hyperlinked them 
... one occurrence each of Credit note, 
Statement, Remittance Advice and Application Response.

There are a number of references on pages 81 and 
82 to the document type "Account Response", which 
does not exist.  Should this term be removed, or 
is there a UBL document of another name that satisfies the need.

I don't see any other changes to the 
documentation triggered from this note in April 
... please advise if you need anything else done in that regard.

Thanks!

. . . . . . . . . . Ken

At 2012-04-04 10:08 +0200, Arianna Brutti wrote:
Hi Jon,

please, find my comments below.

Il 01/04/2012 04:14, Jon Bosak ha scritto:
> Hello PSC,
>
> 1. I've attempted to make the proposed language for the addition of the
> Â Â Â  Fulfilment Cancellation fit the diagrams provided by Peter, but I'm
> Â Â Â  not sure that the result adequately captures the intent of the
> Â Â Â  Subcommittee.
>
>     Attached is a snapshot of Section 2.7, Fulfilment.  Please review
> Â Â Â  this carefully for accuracy and completeness.
From my side, it looks fine.

> 2. Regarding these proposed additions to the table of party roles:
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  ACTOR: Customer Party
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  ROLE: Buyer
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  SENDS: Fulfilment Cancellation
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  RECEIVES: Fulfilment Cancellation
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  ACTOR: Supplier Party
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  ROLE: Seller
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  SENDS: Fulfilment Cancellation
> Â Â Â Â Â Â  RECEIVES: Fulfilment Cancellation
>
> Â Â Â  I have added Fulfilment Cancellation to the rows for Customer Party /
> Â Â Â  Buyer and Supplier Party / Seller, but I am not sure these entries
>     make sense (see attachment with PDF of the table).  For example,
> Â Â Â  Fulfilment Cancellation would seem to belong with the document types
> Â Â Â  under Customer Party / Delivery rather than Customer Party / Buyer,
> Â Â Â  and with Supplier Party / Despatch rather than Supplier Party /
> Â Â Â  Seller.Â

I agree with your point.

The reason due to I suggested:
       ACTOR: Customer Party
       ROLE: Buyer
       SENDS: Fulfilment Cancellation
       RECEIVES: Fulfilment Cancellation

       ACTOR: Supplier Party
       ROLE: Seller
       SENDS: Fulfilment Cancellation
       RECEIVES: Fulfilment Cancellation

is that if I look at the document model, I find:

BuyerCustomerParty 1..1
SellerSupplierParty 1..1
DeliveryCustomerParty 0..1
DespatchSupplierParty 0..1

and, if I am not wrong, the underlying idea 
should be that, in each UBL document, the 
mandatory parties are the sender and the receiver ...
But, definitely, looking at the diagram I agree with your point.

I don't know ... shall we change the cardinality in the document model?

BuyerCustomerParty 0..1
SellerSupplierParty 0..1
DeliveryCustomerParty 1..1
DespatchSupplierParty 1..1

... and maybe that we should also update their descriptions ... something like:

BuyerCustomerParty: Information about the Buyer 
Party. This element is present only if the Buyer 
is not the same of Delivery Party.
SellerSupplierParty 0..1 Information about the 
Seller Party. This element is present only if the 
Buyer is not the same of Despatch Party.


> Also, I note that the nonexistent document type "Request for
> Â Â Â  Catalogue" remains in the table; this may be an oversight on my part,
> Â Â Â  but I cannot find any communication in which I am requested or
>     authorized to remove it.  Please review the snapshot of the party
> Â Â Â  roles table and advise.
Actually we don't have a "Request for 
Catalogue"document, but we have a "Calogue 
Request" ... maybe that we only should update the document name.
> Jon
Best regards
Arianna


--
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm
Crane Softwrights Ltd.            http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
G. Ken Holman                   mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about
Legal business disclaimers:    http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal