RE: [ubl-comment] How to refer to a Party that is ancillary toatransaction

[Michael Adcock <Michael.Adcock@apacs.org.uk>]

Answering the various comments of Patrick, Tim & Andrew:-

There is a direct, and I would have thought, obvious connection between
CONTACT and PARTY especially when you look at the relationship between
aggregates (objects) in the model which is now available.

A PARTY can either be an individual person or an organisation. A
CONTACT is a contact person, or department, within an organisation, or
indeed an organisation's place, e.g. as a GOODS RECEIVING CONTACT at a
building site given as DELIVERY ADDRESS PARTY.

In terms of Patrick's multi-part question, I would suggest that if he
was ordering as an individual then he would give his details under
PARTY. In the same sense, if the ordering was effectively he and his
wife as a couple, they would be a single PARTY with the name Mr and Mrs
Patrick (or more informal), in the same way as they can have a joint
name on a bank account. If however he is sending something to 'someone'
at an organisation, rather than an individual, then the 'someone' is a
CONTACT (GOODS RECEIVING CONTACT) at the DELIVERY ADDRESS PARTY. As for
Patrick and wife, if they were ordering from an organisation rather than
as private individuals, they could be joint ORDER CONTACT name at BUYER
PARTY, or indeed he could be the ORDER CONTACT and his wife the PURCHASE
APPROVAL CONTACT (or vice versa depending on who's the boss!)

Now to Andrew's comment. Indeed, just like EDIFACT, one could have a
Party (NAD) or a Contact (CTA) with a qualifier. BUT, in reality, what
does it gain you? You still have to name each possible qualifier, and
you have to have a careful, high-quality, definition for each of the
qualifier values.  Maybe it is slightly restrictive, but in reality who
in their right mind would want to be able to use any possible qualifier
value for PARTY or CONTACT in an Order. In fact having a qualifier
system proved excessive in EDIFACT, because you had then to write MIGs
which restricted the range of qualifiers that you needed in a particular
message.

I think this falls into the "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"
category of life. On balance I think it is more positive to define the
types of party that you may need in an order as part of the design
process, which I believe is what we have done. Whether or not we
actually need all eleven we currently have is questionable, (I'm not
sure we do in  reality), and if anyone feels we have omitted any then
they should propose the name and definition.

'bye for now...

Mike Adcock
Standards & Security Unit
APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
Mercury House, Triton Court
14 Finsbury Square
London EC2A 1LQ
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk


**********************************************************************
The opinions expressed are those of the individual and not the company.
  Internet communications are not secure and therefore APACS does not  
     accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee responsible for delivering this communication to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or
   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have
 received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
          telephone to arrange for its return.  Thank you.
**********************************************************************