Re: [ubl-dev] Consignee <> DestinationParty

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

I will try and put the historical perspective on the discussions that led
to the current UBL 1.0 model.

There was an 'Order->ConsigneeParty' in UBL 0p66.  By UBL 0p70 this had
been dropped.  This was a direct result of feedback from the 0p66 review.
 The comments we received ran along the lines of... 
a. location of delivery may not be the same as location of ultimate consignee.
b. a location is an address, a party is a business entity - there are many
possible combinations of party and address.
and
c. we were using the term consigee and consignor too loosely and it could
be mis-interpreted.

Our solution was to assume a situation where the buyer party was the ultimate
consignee and the seller party was the orignal consignor.  Any other contexts
would require customizations.  This is stated (not terribly clearly) in the
scope statement for UBL 1.0 as ...

The Order may specify delivery terms, while the Order Line may provide instructions for delivery.

Juha is correct that 'Order->OrderLine->LineItem->DestinationParty'
is the way to associate alternative parties (and their addresses) with individual
line items. Ken is correct that 'Order->Delivery->DeliveryAddress'
allows for alternative locations for delivering the whole order.

As always, these decisions are open to debate.  UBL 1.0 was developed based
on the 80/20 rule  - its just that sometimes one person's 80% is not the
same as someone elses!

It is probably a good time to mention that all these discussions are documented
in the UBL Library Content archives at...

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lcsc/

Kenneth Gray wrote:
> I too have wondered why UBL doesn't have a DestinationParty at the level 
> of the order.  It is unreasonable to expect that simple orders where all 
> lines are for delivery to the same 3rd party should have to duplicate this 
> information on each line.  It makes processing of the order unnecessarily 
> complicated.  I thought about using the '/po:Order/cac:Delivery'.  It 
> includes a DeliveryAddress, but unfortunately not a name. Hmmm! 
>
> I wasn't able to find your 'Order->Consignee' in UBL Op70 though  -  could 
> it have been in an even earlier verson?  I do know that the Danish UBL 
> adaptation, which is currently based on Op70, has defined a 
> DestinationParty at the order level, so others have also seen this as a 
> requirement.  It would be nice to have an explanation, especially if it 
> has existed in an earlier version. Is there a UBL insider who knows the 
> history of this one? 
>
> While on the subject of really-useful-things-missing-from-UBL  (and yes, I 
> know it's a bit late to complain 2 weeks before it gets finalized),  but I 
> could really use some means of distinguishing between different types of 
> orders, for example,  orders for samples, or blanket orders.  Perhaps an 
> OrderTypeCode would be appropriate, just as the Invoice has an 
> InvoiceTypeCode ?  These different order variations typically need to be 
> created as different types in the application system because completely 
> different processing rules apply. 
>
> Ken Gray
> IT Integration Architect
> Coloplast A/S
> Denmark
>
>
>
> Juha Ikävalko <juha.ikavalko@tieke.fi> wrote on 06-10-2004 12:54:12:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > We are defining a document model for an order. Our work is based on 
> > UBL-Order-1.0 and UBL?s customization principles. 
> > As I see it, UBL is a very promising initiative; soon we will find 
> > out how it fits in the needs of a Finnish industry.
> >
> > As I remember it, UBL-Order-0.7 included Order->Consignee ? element 
> > for details about a party for whom the ordered items will be delivered.
> > UBL-Order-1.0 doesn?t seem to include this element. For some reason 
> > I didn?t find any information related to this change. 
> > Have I understood it right, if I claim that the earlier 
> > Order->Consignee information should be now contained in 
> > Order->OrderLine->LineItem->DestinationParty ?element?
> > Could someone explain details behind this change? DestinationParty ?
> > element is, of course, needed on the LineItem level but in a case 
> > where I only have one DestinationParty I would prefer to inform this
> > only once on the Order level.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Juha Ikävalko
> >
> > Juha Ikävalko
> > TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehittämiskeskus ry 
> > TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre 
> > Salomonkatu 17 A, 10th floor
> > FI-00100 Helsinki 
> > Tel +358 9 4763 0410, Fax +358 9 4763 0399
> > juha.ikavalko@tieke.fi  http://www.tieke.fi
> >
> >   

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160