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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-australia message

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

Subject: ubl-australia] Agenda for ALSC Call 9 January 11:00 AEDT

Dear all 

Please find below the  agenda and updated progress for our net all. We shall resume from the section labelled  "Resume from January 2019"

Agenda for ALSC Call 9 January  11:00 AEDT



Meeting ID: 547 975 473

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:

Or iPhone one-tap (Australia): +61280152088,,547975473#

Or additional telephone numbers:

Many thanks to http://eFact.pe for sponsoring our teleconferences.

  • the following should be used as a specific citation:
        OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) v2.2
  • the canonical 2.2 documents are available in the OASIS repository:
  • the working semantic libraries for this subcommittee:
Google sheets are located in the ALSC google drive 


  1. Review of minutes
  1. Review of DBC semantic model (Invoice) approach:
    • Review model issues
      • Optionality in single child elements
      • Cardinality one Accounting Supplier and Customer Party
      • Invoice line documentation (PO, Despatch and Receipt)
      • Party Contact
      • Use of CompanyID in PartyTaxScheme - is it ABN or Branch ID and Cardinality
    • Industry Scenarios
      • Existing trading networks 
        • A detailed analysis has been conducted on the MIGS published by Woolworths, Metcash and Coles. They all use the same version of EANCOM but to varying degrees - stats can be provided. The observations are that
          • The Delivery ABIE child elements should be reviewed for cardinality to support the way EANCOM is used by the retailers
          • The Shipment ASBIE within Delivery should be made optional to to support the way EANCOM is used by the retailers 
          • There is a finite list of supporting documents in the way EANCOM is used - should we create a code list for the DocumentType?- recommend to leave as per consumersâ implementation guide, as a courtesy there would not be too much effort to create a sample genericode file to assist with validations  
          • Item.BuyersItemIdentification should be made available due to being required by Woolworths
          • Pricing can be done by basis value and measurement units which (within UBL) are attributes of price
          • Linetotals inclusive of GST are also included in EANCOM - this may be a requirement for UBL2.3 under the principle that all values should be manifest and that there should not be any calculations in the rendering mechanism or even receipt. This is also a requirement within a state government implementation. Issue is raised - https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-182
        • GS1 XML - Levine
  • Summary of most significant differences/deficiencies  with current ALSC model
    • some GS1 elements appear to be in other UBL documents, perhaps its due to a philosophical difference in that GS1 may cover a smaller number of documents due to reusing them across a number of business processes
    • digital signature should be included from base UBL - to review under extension point
    • address element should include additional elements from base UBL
    • delivery element should include additional elements from base UBL
    • there is an extensive list of supporting documents - should we create a code list for the DocumentType? - recommend to leave as per consumersâ implementation guide
    • Shipment ASBIE within Delivery should be made available
    • Payment Terms structure (GS1) is different from payment terms and payment means structures in UBL  - ALSC model exludes the vast majority of base UBL elements - this work should be reviewed under the payment scenarios work
    • There are a few invoice line item elements that donât appear to have an equivalent in UBL, however as a general impression it seems that these may be required for some unique use case or scenario (none existing could be found). Would recommend exploring at a later date should the need require and address as an extension point. 

      • Details regarding address elements
        • EANCOM Addresses are unstructured 
        • GS1 XML Addresses are structured
        • The ALSC address type is unstructured - agreed to keep base UBL cardinality for ID and Address type code so that addresses can be differentiated based on type
      • Check if GS1 delivery location is distinct from delivery address or included. Does it need to be incorporated only in delivery or should it be part of all addresses? (Andrew)
        • GS1 XML Address has geographic coordinates
          • Suggest ALSC address allows geographic coordinates as the the delivery element has delivery address and hence geographic coordinates as well - agreed
        • EANCOM allows delivery location as part of party identifier (GLN)
          • Suggest delivery/delivery party contain the GLN and hence location for compatibility with EANCOM - agreed
    • Payment Scenarios - Matt Lewis
      • Payment via Card (Credit or Debit) e.g. Visa Debit
      • Payment via BPAY
      • Payment via online payment gateway (UI or API). e.g. PostBillPay, PayPal, AfterPay or other vendors.
      • Payment via Direct Credit (within AU)
      • Payment via Direct Credit (international)
      • Payment via an NPP overlay (using any PayID variant). e.g. OSKO
      • Payment via transfer of Crypto-currency asset/token.
      • Payment via other method (as much as I dislike the concept many organisations still support payment over the phone, in person or via cheque.  So our semantic model should support them to provide one or more textual payment instructions.)
      • Partial or complete pre-payment. eg. a direct debit arrangements, partial deposit etc.
      • Review payment scenarios in next session and determine child elements within PaymentTerms
  • Resume from January 2019
  • Review application of Invoice policy requirements - refer https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UYGYcfJ08KHnM0BvkkhA4Re16kwmYXP6xSmqE7SdDzY
  • Review business rules
  • Produce Schematron, including empty elements check
  • TAX  Category Codes
  • Implementation guidance
    • Delivery structure
    • Payment Means
    • GST Free/ exempt examples
    • Invoice as Receipt
    • More test examples
  • Actions:
    • Chair of ABSIA to progress in March next year
  1. Documentation Approach
    • Proposed approach for review and creation of ALSC artefacts with coaching from Ken
- cnd01dw01 as working draft for artefacts
- cnd01dw01 be reviewed under public consultation
- Templates are available from OASIS
- ALSC Artefacts should be:
- spreadsheets
- schemas & html
- schematron
- document (xml via docbook or word document)

  1. P2P scope - numbered in priority order
    • Purchasing (2)
      • Order, Order Response Simple, Order Response, Order Change, Order Cancellation
    • Fulfilment (3)
      • Despatch Advice, Receipt Advice, Fulfilment Cancellation
    • Accounts Payable
      • Invoice including elaborate payment means (1), Remittance (1), statement (4), reminder (4), Utility Statement (4)

  1. JIRA tickets
Summary - https://issues.oasis-open.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UBL%20AND%20component%20%3D%20%22Australia%20SC%22

When creating tickets for the SC, remember to use âAustralia SCâ to distinguish between the following components by how they are described to be used as categories:
if you leave the "Component/s" field empty, the ticket will not show up in the SC summary filter.

Status and resolution values:
  • NEW - the issue has been created but not yet agreed to be in consideration or not for the development distribution
    • in order for the issue to become active work for the committee the new ticket must be changed to OPEN or it will not be seen in the "to do" filter
    • the other option on a new ticket is to change it to DEFERRED
    • please remember to look at the open filter to ensure visibility:
  • OPEN - the issue is in consideration for the development distribution
    • keep the issue OPEN when assigning to Ken for incorporation
    • please remember to add a comment regarding expectations whenever you assign an OPEN ticket to another person for any action
  • RESOLVED + Incomplete - the issue has been decided but not incorporated for test
  • RESOLVED + Applied - the issue is incorporated in test but not released
  • RESOLVED + Fixed - the issue is incorporated in a working draft version
  • RESOLVED + Later - the issue is still up for discussion for a future minor revision but not the current development
  • RESOLVED + No Action - considered as no action for any distribution
  • RESOLVED + Cannot Reproduce - considered as no action for distribution
  • APPLIED + Fixed - the issue is included in a public review (record the availability of the disposition once review opened)
  • DEFERRED - the issue is not in consideration for any minor revision
    • please remember to use this when creating new tickets for backwards-incompatible changes

See also the discussion on the status workflows here:

Members please note to discuss ticket issues as comments to the ticket so that we can audit the discussion when making decisions about the ticket, without having to find the discussion on the main mail list

  • announcement made at ABSIA conference  - no further progress to report
  • Possible membership increase with state government agencies

Will review on an as needed basis


  • As comes up

Thank you

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