Re: [ubl-dev] Question regarding document copy and attachment in UBL

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

I'd also note that I first came across this requirement in the UK
where such issues may be dictated by the tax office (usually the
local one concerned with VAT). There was in one case, as far as
I remember, a requirement that an invoice never be resent except
with some indication that it was a copy. This was a concession
to conversion to electronic trade from paper trade documents and
mirrors the requirement for paper documents which have to have
'COPY' clearly written on any copies of invoices. It is to ensure
a duplicate payment (and therefore a possible duplicate reclaiming
of VAT) is not made (where the organisation is exempt from VAT
at least). So it is a business requirement, not a technical one. I'm
not sure whether it would be accepted that retries during FTP, say,
would constitute a copy - that would be perhaps at the tax office's
discretion. It was a rule though that if you used EDI you didn't even
need an OK from the VAT auditors so whatever is done in the case
of EDI is obviously acceptable (?). Maybe it is best to copy EDI
therefore if in a country where EDI techinques are accepted without
question. It might be best though to have a look at the latest
directives that apply to you (e.g. EU e-invoicing directive and local
directives if in an EU country or trading with one). Unfortunately
(or perhaps just as well) UBL has to cater for the majority of
countries all at once (allowing for customisation) even when they
have conflicting requirements so there are efforts to standardise
UBL implementations for particular zones e.g. NES and CODICE.
It might be that there is a customisation covering your area which
includes advise about this. The BII project running in CEN is
seeking to cater for EU as a whole too.

On 08/08/2008, Fulton Wilcox <fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com> wrote:
> With respect to scenario 2, as Stephen Green notes, in some cases, the
> requestor might want a literal clone of the original, not for a "copy" that
> has any new information, including a new copy number. If the receiving party
> never received the original because of machine or link failure, the
> receiving party may want in effect a "retransmit" rather than a new "copy."
>
> If the receiving party did in fact process the original, then that party may
> indeed want something that is a new copy, with a copy indicator. Time may be
> a factor, because someone asking for a copy months after the transaction was
> processed may very well want a copy indicator to avoid processing the
> invoice.
>
> It is prudent for originators to archive originals to be able to
> "retransmit" originals rather than generate new "copies."
>
>                                                Fulton Wilcox
>                                                Colts Neck Solutions LLC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:15 AM
> To: UBL-Dev
> Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Question regarding document copy and attachment in
> UBL
>
> On 08/08/2008, Diogo Almeida <diogo.borges.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > #1 Scenario: A supplier issues an UBL 2.0 invoice but wants to send some
> > support documents along with it.
> > The first question that I ask is if I can send them inside the UBL? Can
> this
> > be done using the Attached Document?
>
>
> I would consider using the extension element for this if the attachments
> are XML. Although the expected use of this is as a way to extend the XML
> as a customisation, it was always a use case from the start that it could be
> used to add data such as accounting/costing information to an invoice, say.
>
> I'm not sure the Attached Document is appropriate for adding data to an
> existing
> document but I might be wrong. I'll let someone else comment on how best to
> use it.
>
>
>
> > #2 Scenario: The receiver of the invoice asks its supplier to resend the
> > invoice.
> > From what I've managed to find this can be done by marking the document as
> a
> > copy. Is there anything else that needs to be done to state that the
> > document is being resent?
>
>
> The CopyIndicator is indeed there for exactly this reason. You might also
> need
> to think about whether the UUIDs (if you use them) should be the same
> as with the
> original document. I would say they should but it may be something for the
> auditors concerned to decide in your usage scenario. You could argue on one
> hand
> that if you send a document with a changed CopyIndicator contents then it is
> not
> the same document (the signature, etc might have to be different) so
> it should have
> a new UUID. However, if the UUID is used (as intended) as a way to identify
> the
> business document uniquely then changing it may prevent its use for
> that purpose.
> ...
> I would say to ask any stakeholder auditors who might have a preference but
> otherwise just change the CopyIndicator. On the other hand, this is when
> sending
> the document again from the business application. Sometimes the message
> handler (technical layer) resends it, in which case it probably doesn't
> change
> anything at all and probably keeps the same digital signature if one is
> used.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Diogo Almeida
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen D. Green
>
> Partner
> SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
> Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606
> Associate Director
> Document Engineering Services
> http://www.documentengineeringservices.com
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Stephen D. Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606
Associate Director
Document Engineering Services
http://www.documentengineeringservices.com

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