RE: [ubl-psc] SV: UBL 2.0 draft 10 generated spreadsheets with schema and EDIFI X model

["Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com>]

Tim,
 
WRT your comment "Finally, it appears these spreadsheets are those generated
by EDIFIX. We cannot maintain this edition of the spreadsheets.  They do not
have any of the naming formulae or comments in it.  All we can use this
edition for is checking against the original draft 10 spreadsheets to ensure
they match.  This cannot be the source edition."
 
EDIFIX is capable of producing spreadsheets with formulas and comments. The
ball is in your court to provide templates with CORRECT formulas and a
description of the comments you feel are missing if you want to see these
included in EDIFIX generated spreadsheets.

As I recall, there was extensive discussion during preparation of UBL 1.0
about the current spreadsheet formulas being incorrect.  
 
Regards,
Sylvia
________________________________

From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:36 AM
To: Peter Larsen Borresen
Cc: 'ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] SV: UBL 2.0 draft 10 generated spreadsheets with
schema and EDIFI X model


Peter, well done, this is getting close.

Some remaining issues I can see are...

In the Common Library:
* There seems to be several rows with no UBL Name or Dictionary Entry Name,
eg. rows 56 , 59, 60, 93, 144
* ItemInstance has all BBIEs as mandatory - only the ProductTraceID should
be.  This seems to be carried over from version 9.
* Item has Additional Information as Text (it was actually Identifier type)
but I have a note that we were going to make this an association to
something called 'Attachment'.
* We never use 'Person'.  Didn't we talk about this being associated with
Party (assembled as a child with 0..1 cardinality)?
*  In the common library the column "Context: Business Process" should be
blank for all entries.

In the Procurement Library:
* There seems to be several rows with no UBL Name or Dictionary Entry Name,
eg. rows 21,22,23,24, 78, 86
*  Account Response Line is now redundant and should be removed.
* Some text BIEs are 0..n and some 0..1.  We still need to decide how to
handle multi-language text.  I think we should keep those originally
identified as 0..n until we decide if and how to create qualified data types
for this.
* BasePrice. PriceType. Text  (row 33) should be a Code type.
* BillingDocument has some dodgy Dictionary Entry Names. Some have Credited
Document  and Credited Document. Self Billed Invoice Invoice_ Document
Reference has two "Invoices" in the qualifier???
* On row 86 (CatalogueItem) the associated ABIE is ItemLocationQuantity not
LocationQuantity
* I suspect rows 88 to 96 are Catalogue Reference but it needs a lot of work
on it.
* Classification Category. Code. Code (row 99)  should be Classification
Category. Code Value. Text
* Row 181 and 182 looks like it is supposed to be Despatch Note Line but it
has only one (optional) BBIE , a GUID.  is that correct?  where is it used?
I suspect it is supposed to be in Despatch Line.  The GUID that was in there
is now missing.
* Row 267 (ToBePaidTotalAmount) is missing a version number (2.0)
* Row 270 and 271. we changed the names of these from Buyers ID to ID and
Sellers ID to Sales Order ID, so they should be given version 2.0.
* Row 293 Line Reference: wherever we change any BBIE then the version
number of the ABIE goes up to match it.  So  Line Reference should be
version 2.0 becasue we added a GUID.
* Row 298 (LotIdentification) should also be version 2.0 because we added an
ASBIE (AdditionalItemProperty),
* Row 315  The ASBIE for OrderLine.QuoteLineReference seems to have a
Dictonary Entry Name of Order Line Reference. Order Reference ??
* Rows 316, 317, 318 - these should be version 2.0 (as per rows 270 and 271)
* Rows 385 and 386 - Line Item and Seller Proposed Line Item have no names
and no version number.
* Row 531  - Trading Terms. Information. Text is mandatory (cardinality of
1..n)
* Row 532  - Trading Terms. Reference. Text is an Identifier (like a URI) So
it should be Trading Terms. Reference. Identifier
* Row 553 and 555 seem to have got qualified names despite no qualifiers???

Also, (as you will see) i have starting building the UML models for version
10 and this helps identify more clearly which ABIEs belong in Common and
which in Procurement  (because we can see the tree of dependencies).
Therefore have a look at the attached diagrams and shuffle the ABIEs into
their appropriate homes.  That is, put the common stuff in Common Library
and the rest in Procurement. 

Finally, it appears these spreadsheets are those generated by EDIFIX. We
cannot maintain this edition of the speadsheets.  They do not have any of
the naming formulae or comments in it.  All we can use this edition for is
checking against the original draft 10 spreadsheets to ensure they match.
This cannot be the source edition.

Make sure you are editing the hand made spreadsheets for version 11 (that
is, not these ones).


Peter Larsen Borresen wrote:



		 
		Dear subcommitee
		
		Here is a version of the model spreadsheets with schemas and
a EDIFIX
		model (for Betty) . I have added Attachment to Document
reference, but not
		digital signature. We need to disguss which documents that
need digital
		signatures.
		
		I begin to see light in the end of the tunnel.
		
		:-) Peter
		    

	
	  


-- 
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/