[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] SV: Review of UBL 2.2
Hello, again, Peter.Further to my suggestion a few minutes ago, I can offer an easier way for you to submit the many changes that are needed, rather than enumerating them in a text email.
I suggest that you go to our committee's UBL 2.2 working read-only spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/185sbrn5rodJmu612GGI54_N0eQKNvKZhnoIgksM-MWI/view... and use "File / Make a copy..." in order to create a private spreadsheet of your own that you can edit with your changes.
When adding a BIE, insert a blank row and copy into it an existing BIE row of the same type and then change the light-coloured cells only. The dark-coloured cells have formulae in them. So edit the white (BBIE), light green (ASBIE) and light salmon (ABIE) cells of your copied rows with the changes that you need. Leave the blue, dark green and dark salmon cells untouched.
When you have finished making your changes, use the "File / Download as / OpenDocument Format" facility to save an ODS file copy of the spreadsheet to your computer. Then send the ODS file to this UBL Public Comment list as an attachment and we can work with the information in an automated fashion. We cannot work with a link to your spreadsheet, we need to work with a standalone copy of your spreadsheet that is an attachment to the comment list.
Your assistance in this fashion will be a tremendous help in our work. Thank you, again, for your support of the committee with your suggestions. . . . . . . . . . Ken At 2017-02-01 10:22 -0500, G. Ken Holman wrote:
Thank you, Peter, for the exhaustive list of recommendations for UBL 2.2. I look forward to the committee assessing each of these suggestions and improving the model for the next round.Further to our governance procedures regarding the addition of specific new elements:http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-Governance/v1.0/cn01/UBL-Governance-v1.0-cn01.html#S-PROPOSING-NEW-ELEMENTS... could I impose on you, please, to take the time for each of your new requirements to propose on this comment list both the Dictionary Entry Name value and the Description value that would be appropriate, both of which are required in the new model? The optional example values and equivalent business terms would also be very helpful if applicable.This is needed for every item you think is missing and needs to be added.Giving us this additional level of detail will assist the post-award subcommittee both in assessing the precise nuances of each proposed item, and helping ensure that the subcommittee does not overlook any specific additions implied by the general suggestions. It will also help ensure that what comes out for the second review meets your needs without having to tweak anything for a third review because of an oversight.Thank you for your assistance in this manner! . . . . . . . Ken At 2017-02-01 13:36 +0000, Peter Borresen | Chief Architect wrote:Sorry, I just saw that I forgot to fill out point f, se below: Fra: Peter Borresen | Chief Architect [mailto:email@example.com] Sendt: 1. februar 2017 13:10 Til: firstname.lastname@example.org Emne: [ubl-comment] Review of UBL 2.2 Dear all Clearview trade has the following comments (new requirements for UBL 2.2) a) Package is missing a OrderReference b) GoodsItem is missing a OrderLineReferencec) Package is missing a ContentDescription (Textual description of the content of the package) d) Package is missing PackaingType, or PackingDescription (A text describing the type of packing, in case no code is provided, eg. "Pallet 80x135cm") e) General comment: The 2.1 principle of providing codes as text is not implement for the fulfillment documents. f) General comment: The principle of having DocumentReference I all documents is missing in GoodsItemItenery, RetailEvent, TransportProgressStatus, TransportServiceRequest, TransportServiceDescription, WeightStatement g) Pacakge is missing a StackableIndicator to indicate whether the package can be stacked or not) h) Package is missing a PackageInstanceId (0..n) to identify each package with the barcode, eg. SSCC. This can also be considered for TransportHanlingUnit. i) Package is missing a PickupBatchId or RampId in order to group the packages that should leave with the same truck. j) Cac:Shipment/cac:OrigineOfOrigine should be 0..n instead of 0..1. If the product is comp k) CertificateOfOrigineApplcation is missing a way to specify the price for the service, eg. An allowanceCharge l) CertificateOfOrigineApplication or DcoumentDistribution is missing a PickUpAddress, in case the document is printed out as paper and what to be picked up instead of sent m) CertificateOfOrigineApplication is missing a OrderedPaperCopiesNumeric to specify the number of paper copies the consignor want to order. n) BillOfLaden and or Waibill is missing a typeCode so it can be used as CMR and Air WaybillBest wishes, Peter L. Borresen Head of IT Development
-- UBL introduction lecture - Exchange Summit - Orlando, FL - 2017-04-24 | Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources | Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training @US$45: http://goo.gl/Dd9qBK | Crane Softwrights Ltd. _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ | G Ken Holman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com | Google+ blog _ _ _ _ _ http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/posts | Legal business disclaimers: _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |