OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ubl] Information items in 2-prd2-cd minimal instances


Thanks, Sylvia, for your post on this!

At 2006-08-12 11:17 -0700, Sylvia Webb wrote:
>Based on my experience, I have serious reservations that there can be a
>universal minimum subset defined by the UBL TC.

I apologize that I did not make my post clear.  I 
was not "proposing a set of minimal instances", I 
was reporting the set of minimal instances described by the existing schemas.

>Such a subset can run afoul
>of local, regional, and international laws which specify minimum data
>requirements for specific transactions. Additionally, purchasing or contract
>law can dictate what a minimum subset should be between trading partners.

I agree, and I mentioned, that arrangements would 
exist where business and other requirements are 
being met by more than the minimal set of 
information items, but it was my impression that 
I could, indeed, on a limited basis or one-off 
situation accept from someone a minimal instance 
and be satisfied to pay an invoice based on the 
information in that small set, meeting the 
business requirements *outside* of the software.

>As an example, if I establish a business relationship with a EU company or
>government agency, I have different minimum data requirements that may be
>specified in their subsets or guidelines plus additional requirements
>specified by U.S. and California laws. If I am shipping hazardous goods, I
>have yet another minimum subset of data required. Finally, depending on what
>is specified in any purchase order or contract that I receive, I can have
>multiple minimum subset requirements based on the legally binding
>requirements of those documents. These minimum data requirements do not
>include additional data that I may wish to include to satisfy any best
>practices which my company wishes to follow.

I totally understand, and that would be the norm 
... I was only looking for the back door that 
might allow two new trading partners to use their 
existing systems in a mode of operation that put 
the burden of business rules *outside* of the 
UBL-based electronic system, working with 
information exchanged in the existing UBL framework.

I'm not advocating that the business rules be 
abandoned ... that might be illegal.  But I am 
suggesting that a minimal mode of operation of 
the system would exchange a basic level of 
information electronically between two brand new 
trading partners *without changing their 
software*, thus successfully conveying the core 
information of a transaction.  In this way the 
recipient can choose to accept the information 
and satisfy the business rules outside of the 
software, but the settings of the software itself 
aren't a barrier to successfully exchanging the 
core of information in a temporary manner.

*If* the only way two trading partners could 
exchange information is to have *all* the 
information totally contained in the instances, 
that would be a barrier to two new trading 
partners quickly exchanging information.  But if 
the receiver agrees that the sender can send the 
minimal information and the receiver takes on the 
burden outside of the software of satisfying the 
business requirements they know that the sender 
doesn't know, then the transaction can happen 
quickly without the sender having to change their software.

>IMO, there isn't any way that a standards body can have access to all of the
>subject matter experts needed to consider all of the business rules and laws
>which would be needed to determine an internationally acceptable minimum
>subset.

Again, I'm not trying to create a subset in my 
post, and I apologize that I conveyed my 
information in such a way to imply that I 
was.  I'm just reporting what is currently 
defined in the 2-prd2-cd schemas as the minimum set of information items.

I though that those members of the TC responsible 
for the spreadsheets might look at these reports 
and experience an "ah-ha!" moment and realize that something might be wrong.

In that post I'm not proposing something, I'm reporting something.

I hope this helps clarify my intentions of posting the ZIP file.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training:         Vårø, Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]