Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.

[Mark Leitch <ml@tritorr.com>]

Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.

I thought the Application Response was simply going to be an acknowledgement of receipt that could be used for any message.
The Account Response is the accounting equivalent of a PO Response (not simple !!) stating what the sender believes is wrong with a particular accounting document [line].
I see the requirement for the former but my personal opinion is that the latter should be removed as

1. I think it’s confusing to have a non-tax document at that point in the process and
2. realistically, this is going to involve human intervention and a phone call / email.
   

M

Mark Leitch




> From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:01:16 +0800
> To: <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.
> 
> We still need to decide what to do about these two document types.  They 
> both appear to do the same function (allow an application level response 
> to a transaction), but they have different structures.  I would like to 
> only use one.
> 
> My simple assessment is the Application Response is based on the EDIFACT 
> APERAK document  but the Account Response is designed to reference 
> specific lines on documents.  Can we get some debate on this?
> 
> NB whichever structure we agree on can i suggest we call it an 
> 'Application' Response as I am not sure how it could be seen as  
> response from an 'Account'.
> 
> -- 
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228  
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
> 
> DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business 
> Informatics and Web Services
> http://www.docengineering.com/
> 
> 
> 
>