RE: [ubl-dev] No possibility to include the InvoiceeParty inUBL1. 0Invoice

[Oriol Bausą <oriol@tradise.com>]

Hello all,

That issue is the first item to be addressed in the UBL 1.1 which will start
next week

There's something written about this in the following messages:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200405/msg00006.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200406/msg00048.html

Regards

Oriol Bausa

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk] 
Sent: dimecres, 15 / setembre / 2004 21:06
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] No possibility to include the InvoiceeParty inUBL1.
0Invoice

Re: [ubl-dev] No possibility to include the InvoiceeParty
inUBL1.0InvoiceThanks Kai

Now that UBL 1.0 has just been approved by the TC to go forward to OASIS
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200409/msg00044.html
for standardisation, hopefully this can become one of the 1.1
considerations.

All the best

Stephen Green

----- Original Message -----
From: Wesling, Kai
To: 'ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org'
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] No possibility to include the InvoiceeParty inUBL1.
0Invoice


Hello Stephen,

There is a problem with the assumptions that the buyer is always the
invoicee.

Technically (and practically, I might add) we have 4 different parties
involved in the process.
- The Buyer party which is ordering the goods.
- The Supplier party which supplies the goods
- The Invoicee party which gets the invoice on behalf of the buyer
- The Invoicer party which sends the invoice on behalf of the supplier

The Originator party in the order might even be different from those 4
already mentioned.

I guess, as this is on the UBL issues list, others seem to have the same
problems. We have such cases where we need all the
different informations for the parties.

Best regards
--
Kai Wesling




Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] No possibility to include the InvoiceeParty
inUBL1.0Invoice
From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>
To: <"'ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org'"<ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:28:58 +0100
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Jan

Others may be able to answer this better but in the meantime here is my take
on it.

You may need to wait until UBL 1.1 for extra parties to be defined. It is an
action
item in the UBL issues list (following requests regarding mapping to EDI).

For now it is assumed that the Buyer is, by definition, I think (others may
be able to
confirm this or otherwise) the Invoicee. There is the Originator party in
the UBL order
but this has no counterpart in the UBL invoice. Is it that the party paying
the invoice
is not necessarily the Invoicee? It is assumed in UBL 1.0 (1) that the party
receiving the
invoice is the Buyer and (2) that the invoice would be directed to the party
paying the invoice
which it is assumed is the Buyer. In which of these assumptions is there the
problem?

While UBL has it on the action list for 1.1 to improve this for
interoperability with EDI
standards it may be that your case should be a further consideration.

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> "Riepshoff, Jan" <J.Riepshoff@conxpert.de> 14/09/04 15:57:04 >>>
Hello there,

we are using the UBL1.0 standard for transportation from an SAP system into
a proprietary system.
We need to include quite a pile of information from the SAP iDoc into the
UBL1.0_INVOICE.

Now my question:
What has happened to the "InvoiceeParty" which I've seen in older versions
of the standard?
It is very important for us to have a Node where the information about the
party paying the invoice (since it's not inevitably the BuyerParty) can be
transported.
I think it would be very meaningful to re-include this node into the
standard.
But for the moment I need a solution for my problem. Has anyone a solution
for me? I don't want to misuse a node in a wrong way.