[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Proposal for revised use of Representation Terms for some BBIEs in UBL 1.0 draft 1
Tim
You wrote -
> however,
this will impact on existing
>
implementations as it chnages UBL Names.
> so, if we
agree to this we need to make it clear to the ISC.
In the absense of an ISC meeting I raised this
with
Stephen Parker of Impaq who are implementing
UBL
His view was that these sorts of changes (name
changes and smaller other changes) would not
require much work in adapting their
implementation.
I too would regard the changes as having low
impact
on any development in my own
experience.
I therefore will undertake to make the
changes
but will keep a separate draft without them as
a fallback in case someone raises
greater
misgivings. Thanks Anne though for pointing
out
the name change effects. I raised it at FPSC
and
we didn't think it likely to cause much
disruption
to our work or to Ken's or to the instance
samples.
Another point
Unless I hear to the contrary I'll take it that I
shouldn't
include in the model changes either the inclusion
of
more Dispatch Advice details in the Invoice or the
proposed but not agreed Despatch Date (as
distinct
from Delivery Date).
Any conclusion about CardTpeCode?
All the best
Steve
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]