Public Comment

[comment-form@oasis-open.org]

Comment from: veronique.testa@cegedim.fr

Name:Testa Véronique
Title: Project Manager
Organization: Cegedim
Regarding Specification: UBL 2.0

Considering that the UBL is the future for electronic business, I build my project on UBL 1.0 Invoice model.
However, I've got some questions about mapping EDI elements to UBL. In fact, the EDI invoice allows to identify more party DTM 3035 than UBL. I could not find equivalence for some of them (GS1 allows to define a NAD+LC party for Tax representative, NAD+CO for head office if different from Buyer or Seller , NAD+DL for Factor..). With UBL 1.0 it is not possible to add Sub Party (with name, address...) to the main one to describe the reality (Party Cardinality is set to 1 max).

The second point is that EDI Invoice can exists (see GS1 specifications for D96a) without InvoiceLine. UBL 1.0 doesn't allow this (Invoice Line is 1 to unbounded). We've got such invoices.

Always with EDI Invoice definition, GS1 permits to exchange information between trading partners in free text rather than encoded data. So in invoice header, you can find in lot of cases : FTX segment to transfer in free text Payment Conditions (FTX+AAB, FTX+PMD) government reference (FTX+REG) and reference text in case of Exemption (FTX+SIN). How is it possible to transmit all those informations in the invoice Header. The cbc:Note could not be duplicate and even so, there is no way to distinguish the different text (no qualifier references).

I imagine that someone has already asks you about these points and I'm not the only one working with EDI partners which send/receive GS1 D96a Invoices.

So, is there something I didn't see in UBL 1.0 to take in charge my business reality, or should I wait for UBL 2.0 model that implements all answers.

Thanks for your back.