RE: SV: [ubl-dev] V2 - Invoice cbc:ID on sub-items cardinality ?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Steve,   

Excellent clarification.     

Yes - I'd beening thinking UBL <-> UBL - and not UBL <-> EDI - where of
course there could well be needs in labelling EDI message lines.

OK - my main worry was seeing cbc:ID optional - but seems like that
works here - people can dispense with it contextually where their
partners have no need for it.   

Thanks, DW 

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 
 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SV: [ubl-dev] V2 - Invoice cbc:ID on sub-items cardinality
?
From: "Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, January 23, 2007 10:23 am
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org

Hi

It might be that interoperability is improved between the
XML and any EDI though, in the use case of mixed systems and hubs,
by having ID's wherever they exist in the equivalent EDI documents.
I guess this is the main reason they are in UBL (via CBL and xCBL)
and it seems valid. An reference to an item using an XPath would
only work for XML but systems might have to use a common denominator
to wortk with both the XML and EDI - and likely paper too of course.

The idea of having ID's everywhere may have been based on database
requirements and maybe repositories where the requirement isn't strong
since these types of systems seem to provide ID's internally anyway.

My main concern is to have them where paper equivalents have them
such as Invoice/ID and both LineItem/SalesOrderID and LineItem/ID
(for Orders).

All the best

Stephen Green