Re: SV: [ubl-psc] Meeting in the UBL PSC

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

I like Kees's observation that the original 
order's line item could be copied into the order response's line item.

At 2012-11-16 06:45 +0000, Martin Forsberg wrote:
> The issue occurs in the OrderResponse, where a 
> line doesn?t restate the Item, only refer to the 
> order. When accepting an orderline we refer to 
> the order line, use a code saying accept and that?s it.

Would that not violate a practice (not a 
principle!) that UBL documents are somewhat 
self-contained?  Is there a burden in copying the 
original order's item details into the order 
response?  In my naïveté I would think the 
original element and all its descendants could just be copied.

Then the order response would be more standalone 
(and useful?) allowing someone to act on the 
items of the order response without having to dereference the original order.

Of course there are times when we have to make a 
reference and not copy all of the information, 
but I think this is a case where the order 
response's copy of the order's line item 
information is useful and could preclude the need 
to dereference the referenced original order.

I worry about making too many things optional.  I 
get the impression interoperability is promoted 
when all parties are obliged to enter more of a minimum of information.

Good luck in your PSC meeting today!

. . . . . . . . . . Ken


--
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