[OASIS Issue Tracker] (UBL-28) Support for Verified Gross Mass

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=63137#comment-63137 ] 

Roberto Cisternino commented on UBL-28:
---------------------------------------

INTTRA effort is to provide support to relevant EDIFACT messages used for providing VGM info along with the supply-chain.
I noted they have a specific XML message that covers the VGM communication from the Shipper to the Ocean Carrier.
Of course they take care of a part of the VGM communication along with the supply chain.

Actually the VGM can be provided at different times, also it is common there is a weight bill but it is not certified by the Shipper (no-VGM thus).

A brief summary for EDIFACT messages:

- COPARN (aka Booking confirmation): VGM can be provided along with the booking info if the container numbers (IDs) are already available and of course if the VGM has been already obtained (e.g. The Shipper sends the VGM on the Carrier's portal or through INTTRA)
   NOTE: The Carrier sends the COPARN to both the Shipper (Freight Forwarder as well) and to the Terminal Container

- VERMAS: This is a specific EDIFACT message created to communicate the VGM in a separate way. This is used after COPARN has been sent to the Terminal Container.

- COPRAR "LOAD": this is the final message with load orders for all containers sent by the Carrier to the Terminal Container. This is possibly overriding any other info and can contain VGM info too.

The fact is that the VGM info MUST arrive to the Terminal Container *before* the container enters the terminal gate. If VGM is not available the container is weighed by the terminal container and the VGM certification is requested to the Shipper through the forwarding agent.
It is not uncommon that VGM arrives too late for handling the container the right way.

Some notes on VGM information:
1) I noted INTTRA includes in the booking a "VGM cut-off date/time" information that is relevant for the Shipper. Actually Carriers have a good communication with shippers (and FFs) but not with terminal containers, so VGM does not arrive in time even if the cut-off has been respected.
*We can add this VGMCutOffDate but it has to be a datetime.*

2) I noted they save signature and datetime of verification. I know it is not relevant for the actual uses of the VGM, in fact it is more important the issue date/time of the message on which the VGM info is provided.
Anyway I think we can align with this. The cac:CertificationParty I used in the proposed structure captures the party but not the precise Person that signed the VGM nor the signature date/time so it could be better to use the cac:Signature ABIE for that.

___
Important is that all UBL documents containing container-related info are enriched with VGM info to allow its communication at different times along with the supply chain.

Someone at TSC can help me to correlate UBL messages with EDIFACT messages for the international transport ?
I know that maybe there is not a 1-to-1 relationship but I am interested into the different usage of our transport documents.
Thanks

> Support for Verified Gross Mass
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UBL-28
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-28
>             Project: OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Documents and business objects
>            Reporter: Ken Holman
>            Assignee: Andrew Schoka
>            Priority: Minor
>
> A recent SOLAS regulation requires Verifier Gross Mass (VGM):
> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-tsc/201605/msg00001.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)