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

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

Sorry, I called that conformance - I just read Jon's email about
conformance vs compatibility and it looks like what I would be suggesting
would amount to compatibility.

On 20/02/2008, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
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