[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] [Fwd: Italian implementation of UBL_Invoice]
sonia, i will put your request onto this week's UBL conference call agenda. as Jon noted earlier, we were not expecting UBL 0p70 to be used in any production systems. So it is surprising and useful for us to get this detailed feedback. As you may be aware we are now finalising UBL 1.0 for trial implementation so we may be able to address your requirements. either way, we shall let you know what your options are. monica, your point is well taken. It does indicate a typical scenario for the UBL trial implementations we hope to kick off next month. however i am not sure if this is actaully a case of context or just a better business rule being proposed. the fact this is an italian invoice seems irrelevant, it is the need for more than one payment due that is the issue - is that requirement common/core (80/20)? with regard to contexts, we have plenty of use cases, now we need to put into place the means of re-using and customizing UBL. the context methodology is only one part of the solution. it will explain/define HOW to restrict or extend the schemas. what we also need is the process that says, WHEN, WHERE and WHY to do this. for example, let us imagine that just because UBL does not have a BIE/element called DUNS number , should an implementor create one as an extension? i think this debate should be a main part of the agenda for our face-to-face as we move to UBL 2.0 work. Monica Martin wrote: > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> Ciao Sonia, >> >> I'll write to you in English because your English is excellent. I >> personally am not in a position to answer these questions for you, but >> I've forwarded your e-mail to the LCSC listserv. >> >> Molto piacere conoscerti, >> Joe Chiusano >> > mm1: This appears to be a use case for the context methodology > subgroup to consider. > Thanks. > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Subject: >> Italian implementation of UBL_Invoice >> From: >> "Sonia Guerci" <sonia.guerci@isolutions.it> >> Date: >> Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:57:28 +0200 >> To: >> <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> >> >> >> From: Sonia Guerci >> >> iSolutions s.n.c. >> >> Noceto, PARMA (ITALY) >> >> Dear Mr. Chiusano, >> >> monitoring the UBL LCSC mail archive I’ve found that you speak >> Italian, so I’m taking the liberty to pose a few questions. >> >> We are trying to develop a UBL compliant Web Service for electronic >> invoicing. >> >> Basically we want to export and import invoice data in XML format >> validating the files with the UBL_Invoice.xsd schema >> >> We’re experiencing problems fitting the fields of the typical Italian >> invoice in the XML elements. >> >> Mainly we don’t know exactly where to place Payment Due dates. >> >> If I got it right the Invoice should contain the Seller’s >> instructions that the buyer needs in order to trigger payment. >> >> The problem with the actual schema is that in the Italian invoice we >> usually have more than one “payment due date”. Buyers have the chance >> to pay a determined percentage of the ToBePaidTotalAmount by each due >> date. >> >> We are now coping with this matter putting the entire description in >> the element PaymentTerms/Note >> >> A typical PaymentTerms/Note that we use is “RI.BA. 30/60gg” which >> translates to “Bank Receipt 30/60days”. >> >> If the Invoice/IssueDate was 2003/01/15 the buyer could pay, say, 50% >> of the ToBePaidTotalAmount by the end of February 2003 and the >> remaining percentage by the end of March 2003. >> >> Or the buyer could pay 100% of the taxable amount by one date and >> 100% of the tax amount by the other. >> >> To effectively use the Schema we would need, for example, a >> cardinality 0..n of SettlementPeriod and additional elements to >> contain the percentages of ToBePaidTotalAmount and TotalTaxAmount >> (ToBePaidTotalAmount - LineExtensionTotalAmount) due (or directly the >> Amounts due). >> >> Something like this: >> >> <cat:PaymentTerms> >> >> <cat:ID /> >> >> <cat:Note>*RI.BA. 30/60gg FINE MESE*</cat:Note> >> >> <cat:FromEventCode>*InvoiceIssueDate*</FromEventCode > >> >> <cat:SettlementPeriod>** >> >> <cat:DurationMeasure unitCode="*DAYS*">*30*</cat:DurationMeasure> >> >> <cat:TaxTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric>*50*</cat:TaxTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric >> > >> >> <cat:LineExtensionTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric>*50*</cat:LineExtensionTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric>** >> >> >> </cat:SettlementPeriod > >> >> <cat:SettlementPeriod>** >> >> <cat:DurationMeasure unitCode="* DAYS* ">*60*</cat:DurationMeasure> >> >> <cat:TaxTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric >> >*50*</cat:TaxTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric > >> >> <cat:LineExtensionTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric >> >*50*</cat:LineExtensionTotalAmountPercentRateNumeric >** >> >> </cat:SettlementPeriod > >> >> </cat:PaymentTerms> >> >> This would be great but increasing the cardinality of >> SettlementPeriod should suffice. >> >> My question is: >> >> Is there a chance that the schema in the final release will allow >> more that one payment due date? If not, do you see an alternative to >> the use of the unstructured Note element? >> >> We would really appreciate any help you could give us. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Sonia Guerci >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]