[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DespatchRequest draft2 Attachment Re: [ubl-dev] OrderReferencedoes not include enough information
Here as a zipped attachment is a quick knock-up of some schemas for a DespatchRequest with DespatchRequestLine based on DespatchLine extended with Delivery. The cardinality of Delivery might need a review (I have it provisionally as 0..1). I appreciate you would prefer to call it 'Notice of Outstanding Supply' (it might be better to call it Outstanding Supply Notice to avoid use of the word 'of' which I think might be CCTS-forbidden) but I just wanted to prove the case and demonstrate the schema design. This is a superset customization. A subset of this would follow (perhaps using Schematron or CAM and/or prose and/or test assertions). I believe these schemas are what would be called UBL-Compliant (as distinct from UBL-Conformant). Apologies for my confusing the terms previously. Best regards -- 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 Quoting 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
UBL-SystML-DespatchRequest-2.0-draft2.zip
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]