Re: [ubl-dev] OrderReference does not include enough information

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Hi Michael

There's really not much problem creating your own DespatchRequestLine.
It is OK for UBL conformance. Though you might only need 'compatibility'
for the timebeing since the documents are for internal use, at present,
still I would think you should not forgo the opportunity to keep things as
interchangable with regard to the architecture as possible so you can
always have as much as possible the option of using external documents
should you ever replace the systems or even the organisational departments.

So I would just create your own Custom Common Aggregates schema for
the cca:DespatchRequestLine and fill it with whatever UBL you want (like
a 'pick-and-mix' as we call it in the UK):

How about

cca:DespatchRequestLine
  - cac:DespatchLine
  - cac:Delivery

You'll need a schema module file for the Custom Common Aggregates and
in the future you might need further such files so maybe it should be called
Custom Common Aggregates One so you can have Custom Common
Aggregates Two later on without having to change the DespatchRequest
document schema.

Say:
cca1:DespatchRequestLine
  - cac:DespatchLine
  - cac:Delivery

Best regards

Steve

On 20/02/2008, Michael Strasser <Michael.Strasser@brisbane.qld.gov.au> wrote:
> Stephen
>
>  I have been working on my UBL documents and now have a better
>  understanding how UBL hangs together. Very clever!
>
>  Returning to the document titled Notice of Outstanding Supply, I
>  looked at your suggested DespatchRequest schema. Our paper
>  document includes for each item:
>
>  - order number/line
>  - part number
>  - description
>  - outstanding quantity
>  - date ordered
>  - due date
>
>  Your suggestion of cac:Item doesn't capture enough information
>  so I used cac:DespatchLine instead, ignoring irrelevant
>  components like cbc:DeliveredQuantity, cac:Shipment etc. I got
>  close but found that cac:OrderReference (via
>  cac:OrderLineReference) does not include the order's due date.
>  Here is a contrived example snippet:
>
>  <cac:DespatchLine>
>   <cbc:ID>001</cbc:ID>
>   <cbc:OutstandingQuantity>12</cbc:OutstandingQuantity>
>   <cac:OrderLineReference>
>     <cbc:LineID>003</cbc:LineID>
>     <cac:OrderReference>
>       <cbc:ID>L12345</cbc:ID>
>       <cbc:IssueDate>2008-02-21</cbc:IssueDate>
>     </cac:OrderReference>
>   </cac:OrderLineReference>
>   <cac:Item>
>     <cbc:Description>Rubber Ducky, Yellow</cbc:Description>
>     <cac:SellersItemIdentification>
>       <cbc:ID>RDY-12345</cbc:ID>
>     </cac:SellersItemIdentification>
>   </cac:Item>
>  </cac:DespatchLine>
>
>  My implementation of UBL-Order-2.0 uses /Order/cac:Delivery/
>  cbc:LatestDeliveryDate to specify due date for the order. Do I
>  create a custom aggregate component based on cac:DespatchLine,
>  but with cac:Delivery as well as cac:OrderLineReference?
>
>  This doesn't feel right to me because the deficiency is actually
>  in the order reference, not in the (non-)despatch line. But the
>  alternative looks very messy: create custom DespatchLine,
>  OrderLineReference and OrderReference components?
>
>  Of course, I could try to convice the business that their
>  reminder document doesn't need a due date for the items on the
>  list. I don't think they would accept that.
>
>  Any advice?
>
>  (Remember, these documents are only used internally to generate
>  documents for faxing.)
>
>
>  Regards
>
>  Michael Strasser
>  Brisbane, Australia
>
>
>
>  **********************************************************************
>    This message has passed through an insecure network.
>     Please direct all enquiries to the message author.
>  **********************************************************************
>


-- 
Stephen D. Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice