[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Test Assertions for UBL Calculation Model? Re: Re: [ubl-dev] Basic Invoice Exploration
Just about to start making such a list. I don't think it is very complex at all, except for the 'corner cases'. I expect mostly for tax it will be the totals and the line extension amounts and maybe the payment terms (for settlement allowances/charges). The complex bits are, like Fulton alluded, in the systems sending the documents. I don't think price comes into it (that is hidden behind line extension amount which doesn't have show how it was calculated). Stephen D Green 2009/6/24 <jaymuz@optusnet.com.au>: > Sorry to jump in gents but I was looking to build this myself however you gentleman know your way around these datasets better than I do and I am hoping you may already have same. > > Do we have a list of BBIE's that may play a role in calculating the balance of an amount in an invoice? > > I am talking all BBIE's that could form part of a calculation. > > This would include a price in a catelogue that may transfer to an order. > > This would not include the address of a supplier. > > A list that would be useful would be: > > UBL Name | Object Class | Property Term | Data Type | Definition > > If not I will try and build one myself. > > >> Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote: >> >> I added to wiki what could be a possible start on which entities >> need the calculation assertions >> >> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/ubl/Example_Calculation_Models?action=diff&rev >> 2=21&rev1=20 >> >> I realise it's a little different to your proposed way forward Ken. >> I'm more inclined to think the way to go is to set up a project >> for assertions about the calculation model which feeds directly >> into the UBL TC and its process for authoritative approval >> rather than start with a more distant model like the OIO-UBL one >> which might be seen as a customisation model rather than >> official UBL TC one. This is taking into account advice I was >> getting about the authoring of test assertions in support of a spec >> from the Java spec/conformance guys from Sun and the JCP >> in the OASIS Test Assertions Guidelines TC. I actually think the >> lessons of software engineering are applicable to documents too >> and that conformance and quality assurance for interoperability, >> etc can be improved in document standards the same way they >> can in software (and other engineering) standards like Java - by >> the kinds of steps we outlined in the Test Assertions Guidelines >> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200906/msg00000.html >> (now voted suitable for public review) >> TestAssertionsGuidelines-draft-1-0-5.pdf >> Latest draft link updated here >> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/tag/TestAssertionGuidelines >> >> We are close to having a usable markup for this which for a >> document standard like UBL could even be written so as to >> be executable as a test suite for conformance and/or interoperability >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/group_public/download.php/33024/TestAssert >> ionMarkup-0-3.zip >> >> Maybe I could even get some funding from somewhere to help >> as I think it could take a fair bit of time to produce the test >> assertions >> for a calculation model for UBL (maybe months) - and to pass >> comments regarding ambiguities and gaps back to the UBL TC >> along with seeking their approval of test assertions and supporting >> comments. >> >> Best regards >> >> Steve >> >> Stephen D Green >> Document Engineering Services Ltd >> >> 2009/6/23 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>: >> > Hi Ken >> > >> > Unfortunately I just checked the next one, TaxInclusiveAmount, >> > and I think this one is wrong too - at least in the statement >> > "The TaxInclusiveAmount represents the sum of the >> > total tax amount and the related taxable amount >> > of the document." >> > It must also include any non-taxable amounts. There may logically >> > be more to it than Sum(Taxable amounts) + Sum(Taxes) + >> > Sum(Non-taxable amounts), e.g. Sum(Non-taxable amounts) is not >> > clear on the invoice (may involve some circular logic) and I'm not >> sure >> > this is the best way to go about defining it. I think what you need >> > is all the UBL definitions plus maybe some guarded, careful extra >> > notes (careful about that) plus just in the main a set of assertions >> > expressed in calculation form. Like it has now but with less words >> > (to avoid risk of introducing extra, non-normative logic). Then these >> > assertions should be first approved by UBL TC as conforming to >> > the spec and as promoting conformance to the spec. Maybe the >> > notes should be approved too. Hence best for all this to be done in >> > UBL TC itself - e.g. on wiki then with TC approval/QA process. >> > >> > Maybe what is needed is a set of 'test assertions' as per TAG TC. >> > This is what is going on with OIC TC to help sort out discrepancies >> > over ODF spreadsheet formulas, etc. As in that case, the TC needs >> > to approve the test assertions (or at least anything extra the TAs >> > add to the normative statements of the specs/schemas). Else >> > there will always be arguments over which assertions/calc model >> > is correct and what authority a model has. >> > >> > Stephen D Green >> > >> > >> > >> > 2009/6/23 G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com>: >> >> I haven't yet transcribed the Danish OIO-UBL components into the >> calculation >> >> model page, but I have been told in private correspondence that: >> >> >> >> "I would like to point out that OIO has misunderstood the use of >> >> TaxExclusiveAmount." >> >> >> >> That happens to be the item you cited in your post ... have you found >> other >> >> discrepancies? It is this known error that I refer to in >> >> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/ubl/Example_Calculation_Models when I cite >> the >> >> OIOUBL PDF document. >> >> >> >> Please let me know if you can see other problems. >> >> >> >> BTW, I wasn't told what the misunderstanding is, so I look forward to >> your >> >> edits to the wiki in this regard once I've transcribed things. >> >> >> >> Was it perhaps improper to base the deltas of calculation models on >> the >> >> (corrected) OIO-UBL document? I chose that as a starting point as it >> is the >> >> only such document I know about. If there is a more appropriate one >> then we >> >> can use that as a basis for the example calculation models. >> >> >> >> Does anyone know which citation to use for the BII calculation model? >> >> >> >> . . . . . . . . . . Ken >> >> >> >> At 2009-06-23 17:06 +0100, Stephen Green wrote: >> >>> >> >>> OK, another risky subject. >> >>> >> >>> Looking at the Danish model there are some glaring discrepancies >> with >> >>> the normal interpretation of the UBL tax-related entities' semantics >> (if >> >>> I might try inventing a bit of diplomatic language). In this case >> the >> >>> matter >> >>> of whose rules apply - senders' or receivers' or others' is >> paramount. It >> >>> seems if I send an OIO-UBL document I need a different computation >> >>> system for a different calculation model than if I send what I would >> >>> expect >> >>> to call a UBL-conformant document. Then I risk that document being >> >>> rejected because it is limited how much I can adapt the document >> >>> calculation model to meet the receivers' expectations: my own rules >> and >> >>> the design of my finance system might mean I have to call >> TaxExclusive >> >>> amount just that and use it to contain the payable total of the >> invoice >> >>> minus the tax (and debatably minus any settlement >> allowances/charges). >> >>> The sender's and reciever's expectations and rules might be mutually >> >>> incompatible. So whose apply? Good question. I guess the EU might >> have >> >>> to come up with some rules of their own or risk deadlock. >> >>> >> >>> Stephen D Green >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ >> >> Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video >> >> Video lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18 >> >> Video overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18 >> >> G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com >> >> Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc >> >> Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]