Re: [ubl] UBL 1.1 Additions - Invoicing Requirements

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

thanks for emphasizing this. if you can supply the latest drafts from 
TBG17 it would certainly help us decide how to dispose of these.

i think the question we should ask is "How does this map to the TBG17 
draft CCs?"

as far as the question you pose. i cannot see why we wouldn't (by 
default) submit all new CCs (decontextualized BIE) we encounter to TBG17.

marion.royal@gsa.gov wrote:

> Tim,
> I haven't had the time to look at these in detail yet, but you might 
> add criteria that considers published and pending TBG17 ACCs.
> At minimum, the question should be added - Shall a new ACC be 
> submitted to TBG17?
>
> Kindest regards,
> Marion
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim McGrath" [tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sent: 01/15/2005 05:03 PM
> To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ubl] UBL 1.1 Additions - Invoicing Requirements
>
> In preparation for discussion on this week's Pacific call, we need to 
> review the first set of proposed UBL 1.1 additions for improved 
> Invoicing capabilities.
> In particular the following suggestions....
> Invoice. InvoicingPeriod
> Invoice. DeliveryTerms
> Invoice. InitialInvoiceDocumentReference
> Invoice. RequisitionistDocumentReference
> Legal Total. RoundOffAmount
> Payment Means. PayeePartyName
> Tax Sub Total. InitialInvoiceTaxAmount
> Financial Account. PaymentInstructionID
>
> The justifications for these additions are given in the document 
> attached to the email archived at:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200412/msg00032.html
>
> in addition, the proposals for...
> Allowance Charge. AllowanceChargeBaseAmount
> Tax Sub Total. TaxCurrencyTaxAmount
> - are further explained in the email archived at:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200501/msg00018.html
>
> Those wishing to participate in this discussion should assess these 
> items in terms of:
> a. does their business case satisfy a 'reasonableness' test? is it a 
> 'reasonably' common requirement?
> b. is the proposed solution the best one for the business requirement? 
> is there a better way of providing this?
> c. would the addition be a new BBIE, a new ABIE , a new BBIE, a new 
> code list or a new document type?
> d. is the proposed naming appropriate? (property terms, representation 
> term, qualifiers, etc.)
> e. do we have enough information to dispose of this request?
>
>

-- 
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
(coming soon from MIT Press)
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476