Re: [ubl] BBIE cardinality issues in the latest document model

[Tim McGrath <tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Thanks for documenting this Ken.

My suggestion are given as follows:

Firstly we go ahead with the changes to the BBIEs following  - making 
them all "0..n" (and subject to the constraint about use of multiple 
languages):
> "Allowance Charge. Allowance Charge_ Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Certificate. Remarks. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Carrier Service_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Customs Clearance Service_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Forwarder Service_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Handling_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Information. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consignment. Special Service_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consumption Average. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consumption Correction. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Consumption Point. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Despatch Line. Backorder_ Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Despatch Line. Outstanding_ Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Exception Notification Line. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Forecast Revision Line. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Fulfilment Cancellation. Cancellation_ Note. Text" (new): 1
> "Item Management Profile. Replenishment Owner Description. Text" 
> (new): 0..1
> "Location. Conditions. Text" (old): 0..1
> "On Account Payment. Note. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Order Cancellation. Cancellation_ Note. Text" (old): 1
> "Order Response Simple. Rejection_ Note. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Packing List. Description. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Party Tax Scheme. Exemption_ Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Receipt Line. Reject_ Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Retail Event. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Shipment Stage. Demurrage_ Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Shipment Stage. Instructions. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Shipment. Handling_ Instructions. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Tax Category. Tax Exemption Reason. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Telecommunications Supply Line. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Transport Equipment. Description. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Transport Equipment. Information. Text" (old): 0..1
> "Transport Equipment. Special_ Transport Requirements. Text" (new): 0..1
> "Transport Execution Plan Request. Document Status Reason Description. 
> Text" (new): 0..1
> "Transport Execution Plan. Document Status Reason Description. Text" 
> (new): 0..1
> "Transport Handling Unit. Handling_ Instructions. Text" (old): 0..1
Note: i have removed "Tendering Terms. Additional_ Conditions. 
Indicator" from Ken's list as Indicators are not covered by the 
constraint and should always be 0..1.
And also "Payment Mandate. Maximum Payment Instructions. Numeric" (new): 
0..1 - numerics are also always 0..1.


For the 2.1 additions, I suggest
> "Awarding Criterion. Calculation Expression. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Awarding Criterion. Minimum Improvement Bid. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Awarding Criterion. Weight. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Clause. Content. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Contract Award Notice. Regulatory Domain. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Contract Execution Requirement. Name" (new): 0..n
> "Contract Notice. Regulatory Domain. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Contracting Party. Activity Type. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Contracting Party. Contracting Party Type. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Declaration. Name" (new): 0..n
> "Evaluation Criterion. Expression. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Evidence. Name. Text" (new): 0..n
> "External Reference. Hash Algorithm Method. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Framework Agreement. Frequency. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Item Property. List Value. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Item Property. Value Qualifier. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Meter Property. Value Qualifier. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Meter Property. Value. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Party Legal Entity. Company Legal Form. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Procurement Project. Name" (new): 1..n
> "Requested Tender Total. Monetary Scope. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Service Provider Party. Service Type. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Telecommunications Service. Roaming Partner Name. Name" (new): 0..n
> "Tender Line. Orderable_ Unit. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tender Receipt. Contract Name. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tender. Contract Name. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tenderer Qualification Request. Company Legal Form. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tenderer Qualification Response. Contract Name. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tenderer Requirement. Name" (new): 0..n
> "Tendering Terms. Funding_ Program. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Tendering Terms. Penalty Clauses. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Utility Item. Subscriber Type. Text" (new): 0..n
> "Work Phase Reference. Work Phase. Text" (new): 0..n
Are all acceptable.  The differences from Ken's list are:

"Capability. Evidence Supplied. Identifier" (new): 0..n
"Declaration. Evidence Supplied. Identifier" (new): 0..n
"Tender Preparation. Procurement Project Lot. Identifier" (new): 0..n
"Tenderer Party Qualification. Interested Procurement Lots Identifier. 
Identifier" (new): 0..n
"Transport Equipment. Referenced_ Consignment Identifier. Identifier" 
(new): 0..n
- are acceptable if we accept that we must use multiple identification 
schemes (the schemeID is not duplicated)

Also, I suspect that:
"Exception Criteria Line. Exception_ Resolution Code. Code" (new): 0..n
and
"Contracting Party. Activity Code. Code" (new): 0..n
- are in error and should be 0..1.  Did we mean to allow multiple code 
lists?  If we did then same constraint as with Identifiers (above), we 
must prohibit duplicate schemeIDs.

Finally, "Status. Condition Value. Measure" (new): 0..n
does not make sense and it should be an ASBIE to Dimension and called 
"Status. Condition Value_ Dimension. Dimension" (0..n)



begin:vcard
fn:Tim McGrath
n:McGrath;Tim
org:Document Engineering Services
email;internet:tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com
title:Managing Director
tel;work:+61893352228
tel;home:+61438352228
tel;cell:+61438352228
url:www.documentengineeringservices.com
version:2.1
end:vcard