[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Re: UBL OrderResponse
Hi, all! I agree the Order Response (simple) will be a very tiny subset of the Order Response (complex), which itself will be a mirror image of the Order with the addition of the Seller's Order Number. The one significant difference between OR(c) and OR(s) is that the Order Response (simple) could advise rejection, whereas I do not believe one should/could/would reject using the Order Response (complex). This alone, from a legal point of view, might justify having separate messages. The OR(s) could be described using a Message Implementation Guide (MIG) saying how to use the OR(c) for a simple response. Or it could be described as a separate message. Either way I think the work in preparing documentation of OR(s) would be about the same. On the whole I favour a separate message because OR(s) is such a small subset of OR(c) that it 'feels right' to do it that way, and because of the one extra function of OR(s) which has a different legal standing. I hope these thoughts are helpful. Mike Adcock Standards & Security Unit APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services Mercury House, Triton Court 14 Finsbury Square London EC2A 1LQ Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299 e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk >>> Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 26/11/02 23:30:24 >>> i thought we had agreed it was one message with two differing uses. in fact, the simple is potentially a subset of the complex. we originally split this to make it easier to produce our second document defintion. this no longer is necessary so we shouldn't get too hung up about the difference. it just seems simpler to leave them as they are. are there any opposing views on this? Wachtmann, Dagmar wrote: >Hi, > >yesterday Michael and me, we talked again about the UBL messages. We have one more question concerning the OrderResponse Message: > >In the Scope there is the OrderResponse (Simple) and the OrderResponse (Complex) Message. > >Are these really TWO different messages or is this just ONE message, which could be used in two different ways?? > > >Thank you very much and hope hearing you soon again, > >Michael and Dagmar > > > > -- regards tim mcgrath fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ********************************************************************** The opinions expressed are those of the individual and not the company. Internet communications are not secure and therefore APACS does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for its return. Thank you. **********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC