Re: [ubl-dev] In the ParticipatingParty structure...

[David Goodenough <david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk>]

Thinking it through I think I agree that it should be second, although your wording opens a further possibility. Given that the (positive) response to a DigitalAgreement is itself a DigitalAgreement, is it the sender of each DA, or the sender of the first DA? The first would make it easier to work out who this agreement is really with when sorting the list of participants especially when it is multi-lateral.

 

On your point about multi-lateral agreements, it is a shame that the multi-lateral example does not include the attribute and the simpler example

does.

 

David

 

On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 14:16:56 BST JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino wrote:

> Hi David,

> it is an implementation dependent information,

> it could be either the party that first sent its DigitalCapability or

> simply the DigitalAgreement *sender*.

> I would prefere the 2nd because this particular document does not have

> fixed Sender and Receiver parties.  Especially in the multi-lateral

> agreement the sender shoudl be the initiator.

>

> Hope this helps,

>

> Roberto

>

> Il 26/06/2018 12:38, David Goodenough ha scritto:

> > in a DigitalAgreement there is an InitiatingPartyIndicator.

> >

> > Is this the party who sent the DigitalCapability in response to which

> > the DigitalAgreements were exchanged, or is the the party who received

> > the DigitalCapabilities and sent back the first DigitalAgreement?

> >

> > I had assumed it was the one who sent the DigitalCapability, but then

> > a nagging doubt arose in my mind that it might be the first

> > DigitalAgreement sender because in the example it is Vendor who is has

> > InitiatingPartyIndicator=true, not Buyer. But in the multi-lateral

> > example neither has the indicator.

> >

> > David