Re: [ubl-lcsc] latest issues list (examples / fpsc work)

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Hi

Following on from my posting of the latest issues list, I've proposals which, apologies, I haven't had time to combine with UBL_instances_0_70_to_0_80_issuelist_05.txt but have merely cross-referenced to it. 

Some of them relate to my unofficial draft so they may not tie in to 0.80. Most have some relation to it though.



Action proposals cross referencing latest issues list 

1. for issue L.(a)	make Seller Party optional in order cancellation spreadsheet 

2. for issue L.(a)	make Buyer Party optional in order cancellation spreadsheet 

3. for issue L.(b)	make OrderReferences 0..n in despatch spreadsheet (line 9)

4. for issue L.(b)	make delivery requirement optional in despatch spreadsheet at do level

[4b. for issue L.(b)	compare office and joinery despatch - what difference?]

5. for issue L.(c)	add note entity to order spreadsheet

6. for issue L.(c)	make dlivery schedule optional in order spreadsheet

7. for issue L.(d)	debug acknowledgementacknowledgementcode in order change spreadsheet

[7b.  for issue L.(e-g,j,k)	find out why 
LineItemCountQuantity, etc not in reusable]

8. for issue L.(h)	? references or identifiers?

9. for issue L.(l)	? what is actual shipping (is it the solution to the delivery requirement inappropriate use problem? if not likely to be used all the time make it optional	

10. for issue L.(m)	no action - id's are needed for referencing 

11. for issue L.(n)	make deliver schedule optional at doc level

12. for issue L.(n)	make delivery requirement optional in delivery schedule in reusable spreadsheet (ramifications may follow)

13. for issue L.(o)	seek clarification about the purpose of the order line order document refernces - they might create variation in entity use so if hey have no clear purpose remove them or else prevent improper use compared with other order document reference entites in the order

14. for issue L.(p)	make BuyerID optional in LineItem

15. for issue L.(q)	seek to create a new set of IDs once it is clarified what is distinct about the purchase account references 

16. for issue L.(r)	try to ensure the tax scheme.id is not left out of the schemas by the tool (but note that there may be confusion between this and the tax scheme.typecodeid

[16b. for issue L.(s)	check for anything missing]

17. for issue L.(t)	seek clarification of the tax type codes and id's - do they need codelists?
make them optional if possible



19. for issue L.(x)	correct Date to IssueDate in receipt spreadsheet (+ look at others)

20. for issue L.(2)	maybe correct receipt line 'id' to be 'lineid'

21. for issue L.(y)	add receiveddate to receipt spreadsheet (optional)

22. for issue L.(8)	make receiveddate optional in reusable spreadsheet

23. for issue L.(z)	? is languagecode as an entity needed when it already is an attribute

24. for issue L.(1)	? seek rationalisation of delivery requirement (see 9. above)

25. for issue L.(3)	change references.id to references.documentid in reusable spreadsheet

26. for issue L.(4)	ensure all document id's, line id's and item id's (?) are mandatory

27. for issue L.(5)	ensure referncing works OK in item in reusable
(may need new ABIE)

28. for issue L.(7)	? may need new tax totals total sort of ABIE

29. for issue L.(10)	? seek resolution and rationalisation of the various document line and item identifiers

For some of these I could do the same as for the previous issues while for others I feel I should get feedback. Sorry, again, that there are so many. Perhaps there is an individual who would contact me and go through them with me if they have time. Otherwise I'm relying on meetings and mailings. But I would hope that most of these can be experimentally solved in draft for the sake of the FPSC work in tryingto guage soon, as much as possible, how things might pan out.

All the best

Steve