Re: [ubl-lcsc] Legal aspects of empty elements

[Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com]

I can speak from the insurance industry point of view.

In the ACORD (insurance standards organization) specification, we state
that empty tags are not allowed because of just what you state.  It would
be impossible for one trading partner to understand what the other had
meant if an empty tag had been sent....



____________________
Alan Stitzer
AVP
Marsh USA Inc.
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2774
Phone: (561) 743-1938
Fax: (561) 743-1993
Internet: Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com
____________________


<<< Memo from cheekai@softml.net@Internet on 02 July, 2003, 06:25:29 AM
Wednesday >>>


cheekai@softml.net@Internet on 2 Jul 2003, 06:25 Wednesday

To:    ubl-lcsc
cc:      (bcc: Alan Stitzer)
Subject:    [ubl-lcsc] Legal aspects of empty elements


This is related, but separate discussion with the empty
elements found in the sample instances done by Stephen.

I don't profess to know much about legality, but the
question I have is based on normal working experience.
And I'm seeking perhaps some answers or initial thoughts
on this towards the direction of actual implementation.

In normal contracts, of which P.O. is one type, there is
a slight difference between not stating something, as
opposed to stating an empty return.

The difference is mostly acceptable if everything goes
well, but becomes basis for sometimes great grounds for
dispute when things go astray.

Now in the electronic equivalent in XML, the technology
permits the equivalent of stating empty value (instantiate
element which contains empty string) versus not stating
at all (no instantiation).

So if we have a policy or rule of some sort that says
we do not instantiate unless instance applications
consciously wish to indicate an empty value, then it
seems to match closer to normal business practice.
(A more compact instance representation comes as a bonus,
though I think the implications derived seems to value
more).

What does the list think about this?  Or does it fall
outside LC's scope, or even UBL's scope?



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/



You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php



To:    ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org@Internet
cc:     (bcc: CN=Alan Stitzer/OU=NYC-NY/OU=US/OU=Marsh/O=MMC)
From:  cheekai@softml.net@Internet