[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] For Review: Code List Defaults
Thanks, Stephen. I'll get these into the Catalogue.
I'm trying to write up the minutes before my recollection of the reasons
behind
the decisions/discussion gets muddied. Thanks for the recap at the end
of this note.
-A
Stephen Green wrote:
>Anne
>
>As far as DocumentStatusCode and LineStatusCode are concerned, for now all I would want to see is four values for each codelist, actually the same in each codelist (why two codelists then? ...)
>
>(Values were loosely made similar to a small subset of 4405 names.
>Descriptions are given in square brackets and values in quotes.)
>
>
>
>DocumentStatusCode[Identifies the status of the document with regard to its original state.]:
>
>"Revised"[a revision has occurred to all or part of the document from its original state], "No Status"[no change to the document has occurred with regard to its original state], "Cancelled"[the document has been cancelled in its entirety], "Disputed"[the document or part of it is in dispute with regard to its original state]
>
>
>LineStatusCode[Identifies the status of the line with regard to its original state.]:
>
>"Revised"[change has occurred to the line from its original state], "No Status"[no change to the line has occurred with regard to its original state], "Cancelled"[the line has been cancelled], "Disputed"[the line is in dispute with regard to its original state]
>
>
>The descriptions added to the codes and codelists are in the format for the Catalogue spreadsheet as was agreed on the call today.
>
>The looseness with which these code values have been aligned with or made similar to UNCL code names is partly due to the perceived difference of purpose and/or meaning between the UBL StatusCode and the that of the UNCL codelist(s). The former has the purpose of providing data about the business data held in the document either at document level or at ine level with regard to chnages that may have been made to the content of that data, in particular since a previous issuing of that data (whether in the same document type as with a receipt advice that might have needed correction say or in another document type such as an order when the StatusCode is part of an order change).
>
>General Note Following LCSC Call
>
>LCSC has discussed that while we should endevour to use the UNCL codelists (even if just the names rather than the numeric values) we can only do so when we are sure that there is sufficient closeness of both meaning and purpose. Otherwise, when the codes concerned are critical to the basic functioning of UBL or obviously require consistency of meaning and use across general implementations (rather than within specific trading-partner agreements), then UBL will create its own code values, perhaps in as similar as possible a to way to that by which it has created its BIEs.
>
>In the case of the latter, it was decided:
>1) that descriptions will be required to supplement those code values, similarly to the fact that descriptions accompany the BIEs. How this is implemented is still to be considered.
>2) The values themselves will be provided in upper camel case.
>3) It is hoped that they will as extensible as the rest of the models and schemas.
>
>All the best
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>"Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 10/21/03 13:19 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Anne
>
>AllowanceChargeReasonCode, CancellationReasonCode and OrderRejectionReasonCode:
>
>We have to distinguish the reason codes from codes specifying whether something is this or that - i.e. a few of the codes aren't there to say 'whether' but 'why'. For this reason I'd reject 5463 for the allowance code (it states whether we have allowance or charge and UBL has an indicator for that) - what we need is a set of reasons for say, discount (allowance) e.g. 'trade discount' and combined with the same codelist a set of reasons for a charge. http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl5189.hm may suffice, perhaps, for charge reasons but seems very weak for allowances (discounts, etc.). I'd suggest perhaps 4465 which at least has things like 'cash discount' and a relevant codelist name
>
>I wouldn't like 4343 for reasons for cancellation or for OrderRejectionReason - it specifies the 'whether' rather than the 'why'. Perhaps 4405 is OK but i'd need more time to consider it. It has some very funny members like "Tooth wedged between another tooth and the jaw". It might have relevance to the Status Codes but I think we'd have to be careful and it would take some time to select the right subset.
>
>Now I look again at 4465 I'd say it would be good for AllowanceChargeReasonCode,
>CancellationReasonCode and OrderRejectionReasonCode and *joy* I reckon we can take the whole list!
>
>How's that - if you're happy and the SC is too - I'd say we go for TRED 4465 http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d03a/tred/tred4465.htm for the three codes AllowanceChargeReasonCode, CancellationReasonCode and OrderRejectionReasonCode.
>
>I'll need more time to look at the others, e.g. status codes.
>
>All the best
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>>>>Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com> 21/10/03 02:43:15 >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Hello Stephen,
>
>Thanks very much for this list. Here is what I've come up with:
>
>For AllowanceCharge:
>
> Reference in the aggregate 'Allowance or Charge Code Qualifier'
> (http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/trsd/trsdalc.htm) are
> 5463 and 5189. I tend to think 5189 is best suited to what you're
> trying to accomplish with the message, but take a look and see what
> you think. I'll pull the values from whichever one you think is
> best suited,
> http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl5463.htm
> or http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl5189.htm)
>
>For CancellationReasonCode"
>
> For both of these Sue has a UNCL 4343
> (http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl4343,
> code listed in the Catalogue, but she has also has a question mark
> after it and the values in the 'actual values' column arenot in
> that code, and I can't see any values in it that might suffice for
> these codes, so in looking for something we can use I've come back
> to 4405 (http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d03a/tred/tred4405.htm
> or http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl4405.htm
> depending on your viewpoint) which is in a lot of these Composite
> code classifications and has "Order or Request Cancelled" and
> along with many other values that could be utilized, depending
> on our context. Please take a look a both of these, though,
> and let me know which is most useful to you at this time.
>
>For CountryIdentificationCode:
>
> ISO 3166. Done by Jon. Should this be changed to "Standard"?
>
>For CountrySubentityCode:
>
> In the Catalogue, this item is noted as being ISO 3166 as well.
> However, I'm not sure if this would be what was intended.
> Problem is that there is nothing I've seen that has the term
> "Subentity" in ISO 3166.
>
> What there is under the UN LOCODEs are:
> - "Subdivision"s, which for the U.S., for example, would be
> states (eg. California) and for the U.K. would be,
> for example, Essex
> and
> - "Location"s, which seems to contain cities
> (eg. San Francisco, London).
>
> When we use "Subentity", to which of these might we be referring?
>
>For CurrencyCode:
>
> Provided by Jon.
> Now, there was a discussion beginning with Tim's email on 5 October
> on which source to use for these, and the Catalogue currently says
> 'UNECE 9', which can be found at
> http://www.unece.org/cefact/rec/rec09/rec09/1996_ecetrd203.pdf
> or http://www.unece.org/cefact/rec/cocucod.htm and seem slightly
> different than what Jon has posted from BSI/ISO. At this point
> I'm assuming we will update the Catalogue rather than the lists.
> Is this a concensus?
>
>Jon's earlier email he suggested the three codes above be used
>as the raw material for "Stock" codes (rather than "Standard").
>Right now the Catalogue also shows them as being "External Placebo".
>Let me know if these should be anything other than "Standard".
>
>For OrderRejectionReasonCode:
>
> I assume there this is rejection by the Seller of the Order
> rather than by the Buyer? Now here I would go back to UNCL 1229,
> http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d03a/tred/tredi1229.htm (which we
>discussed
> earlier as Sue had it noted for the LineItemStatusCode) or even
> 4465 (see next bullet below) rather than 4343, as currently
> indicated in the Catalogue (albeit with a question mark).
> But take a look at these and let me know what you think.
> I just don't see anything in 4343 that seems like it would work
> and the values that Sue has listed in the "Actual Values" column
> for this code are not availablel in 4343.
>
> What is available in 1229, though, that seems useful, are codes
> such as "Cancelled", "Replaced", and even "Not Accepted - This
> line item is not accepted by the Seller", as a fallback.
>
> Also, 4465 (below) seems mainly from the Buyer's point of view,
> or it would work as well. If this is not a Seller-only rejection
> possibility, then you might consider 4465 as noted below.
>
> Also, please take a look at "Adjustment Reason Code", as it may
> suffice for a couple of these. This is where it gets a bit scary,
> though, as you can see between the two URLs below that UNCL is
> truly under construction. The two pages, both named 4465, and
> obviously the same code list, but they have different descriptions
> so far, as it appears the UNCL one is just being populated:
> (http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl4465 and
> http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d03a/tred/tred4465.htm).
> This is also the case for 1229. Because of this I will keep
> the URL references to the tred site URLs for now.
>
>For DocumentStatusCode:
>
> 4405: "No Status" (45)
> "Revised" (36)
> "Withdrawn" (40) | "Order or request Cancelled" (64) |
>"Terminated" (105)
> "Disputed" (90)
> or
> 1225: "Change" (4)
> "Replace" (5)
> "Cancel, to be reissued" (17)
>
>For LineItemStatusCode:
>
> 4405: "Revised" (36)
> "No Status" (45)
> "Withdrawn" (40)
> [Not sure if you need "Disputed" at line level.]
> or
> 1229: "Added" (1)
> "Deleted" (2)
> "Changed" (3)
>
>Caveat:
> There is a high likelihood, given that the UNCL codes are
> under development, that some of this may end up changing
> in the future if we move to support UNCL-only codes,
> since it seems that the TRED codes are not being adopted
> wholesale by UNCL, but the UNCL codes are in flux. If the
> UNCL codes were to be completed before FCS, we may want to
> revise some of these codes to align competely with UNCL.
> That is just not possible at the moment given the state
> of the UNCL lists.
>
>Version information:
> As we discussed in the last call, the UNECE codes
> (unece.org/trade/untdid/...) do not have version information
> attached to the documents. Tim mentioned that the versions
> are embedded in the URL. Should we add this info to the
> 'Version' column, then? If so, I need to be able to know
> how this is represented in the URL and we should prossibly
> explain this somewhere as it could be automatically generated,
> if that is the case (that there is a predictable pattern to it).
>
>Interesting note:
> http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d96a/uncl/uncl3055.htm holds
> a large list of acronyms for organizations. Is this something
> that we would take in to UBL as part of the acronym list?
>
>-A
>
>Stephen Green wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi
>>
>>The following are codelists for which I would like to see either default (preferably) or stock (with placebo default) given values:
>>
>>AllowanceChargeReasonCode
>>CancellationReasonCode
>>CountryIdentificationCode
>>CountrySubentityCode
>>CurrencyCode
>>OrderRejectionReasonCode
>>
>>The reason in most cases is that these are codes
>>needed for basic use of UBL, not for specialised
>>uses particulrly. For instance, it would be fairly essential for the use of the Order Cancellation to
>>have values for the Cancellation Code. Similarly the
>>OrderRejectionReasonCode.
>>
>>The following should revert to 'Standard' now since
>>the reason for their being made placebo or stock is less appropriate. This is so that their values can be
>>kept consistent across utilisations / implementations of UBL, essential to their effective use.
>>
>>DocumentStatusCode
>>LineStatusCode
>>
>>All the best
>>
>>Stephen Green
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com> 10/17/03 18:38 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Here is a file containing just the codelist Namespace name,
>>Definition Default value, and its Ownership, taken from the
>>current Code List Catalogue.
>>
>>The AI from today's meeting is to review these items to determine
>>which of them should be designated as "Standard" for the Definiton
>>Default. The description of "Standard" and the other possible
>>options ("Placebo", "Stock", and "Private-Use") are at the end
>>of the list.
>>
>>Please send comments to the LCSC list.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]