[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Header v. Line
Re: Header v. Line I’ve read the responses to my original email from Sylvia and both Tims.
I do not believe that this is an ‘80/20’ issue; it is far too fundamental to be a matter of customisation. If we cannot process at the line level throughout the business process, we stand little chance of automating the process which, to me (and OGC) is key.
I think the argument about the potential discrepancy between the capabilities of trading partners’ systems is a circuitous one; the simple answer in Sylvia’s scenario is that, if the standard in question insists on line level processing, the receiving partner has not implemented the standard. The Materials Management module of SAP uses sub-line delivery schedules, but not all receiving partners use SAP.
I don’t think we can be seen to perpetuate this issue into 2.0; its propensity to confuse is far greater than its propensity to simplify. As a facilitator to automating the ‘P2P’ process for buyers and sellers alike, it’s simply not fit for purpose.
M
Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.: +44 1932 821112
Cell.: +44 7881 822999
Mail: ml@tritorr.com
Site: www.tritorr.com
From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com> <mailto:swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG US
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com> <mailto:swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:19:33 -0700
To: 'Tim Benson' <tim.benson@abies.co.uk> <mailto:tim.benson@abies.co.uk> , 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com> <mailto:ml@tritorr.com> , 'Tim McGrath' <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> <mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> , 'Peter Larsen Borresen' <plb@itst.dk> <mailto:plb@itst.dk>
Subject: RE: Header v. Line
How do you address the issue of trading partner 1 sending delivery details at the line level when the receiving partner's software can only accept them at the header level?
Sylvia Webb
From: Tim Benson [mailto:tim.benson@abies.co.uk] <mailto:tim.benson@abies.co.uk%5D>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:14 PM
To: swebb@gefeg.com; 'Mark Leitch'; 'Tim McGrath'; 'Peter Larsen Borresen'
Subject: Re: Header v. Line
To me the point is that one way (line-level) is always fit for purpose, while the other way (document level) is sometimes OK and sometimes not.
A similar argument was used used for the benefits of allowing missing end-tags in both HTML and SGML. XML and XHTML insists that all start tags must have end tags, even when it is “obvious” that this data is redundant. XML is right.
We really have to bite the bullet and agree that if there is one way of doing something that is always fit for purpose, it is illogical to allow any other way of doing the same thing. It justs adds to implementation and testing costs.
Tim Benson
From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com> <mailto:swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG US
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com> <mailto:swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:31:32 -0700
To: 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com> <mailto:ml@tritorr.com> , 'Tim McGrath' <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> <mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> , 'Peter Larsen Borresen' <plb@itst.dk> <mailto:plb@itst.dk>
Cc: 'Tim Benson' <tim.benson@abies.co.uk> <mailto:tim.benson@abies.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Header v. Line
Mark,
You bring up an issue that has had much discussion within UBL with no clear cut answers. I have hands on experience with ERP systems for small businesses as well as those from SAP and Oracle. It never ceases to amaze me when I hear about systems that do not support delivery information at both the header and detail level, especially those for small and medium size businesses.
One of the fundamental principals of UBL uses the 80/20 rule of designing the standard such that it meets 80 percent of the requirements for e-documents with the other 20 percent being accommodated with customization. Another principal is that we (the UBL development community) strive not to develop standards that become too complex and expensive for small and medium size businesses to use. This presents challenges that must be revisited from time to time.
I will add this to our action item list for discussion.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com] <mailto:ml@tritorr.com%5D>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Tim McGrath; Sylvia Webb; Peter Larsen Borresen
Cc: Tim Benson
Subject: Header v. Line
I have started to look at the UBL spreadsheets and the issues list. I think we have a very fundamental issue with this Header/Line thing and active consultation of the ERP vendors may help.
As you know, there are certain items that I argue can only usefully be expressed at Line level and not Header; Delivery is one of these. I believe that even if the user of, say, the purchasing system wants all ten Lines of a PO delivered to the same address and is able to enter that in the PO or Requisition Header in the system, the system usually will (and should) ‘copy’ this information into all of the Lines and express it at Line level in the message. This allows the Seller, if required, to split the PO into separate delivery Lines (or Invoicing Lines for that matter) without losing the specific delivery details.
Same argument applies on the Seller side with the Order Response Simple. It breaks the whole logic of the messages’ facilitating an automated process.
I don’t think that this issue fits neatly into the issues list, but we must address and resolve it.
M
Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.: +44 1932 821112
Cell.: +44 7881 822999
Mail: ml@tritorr.com
Site: www.tritorr.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]