ubl-psc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents
- From: "Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com>
- To: "'Mark Leitch'" <ml@tritorr.com>,<ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:16:52 -0800
Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents
Mark,
Are you saying that the PSC will not consider these other
uses of the Statement?
There are many scenarios where taxes do not apply to the
purchase of goods and services and a Statement is all that is
needed.
Regards,
Sylvia
To me, the important word in ‘consolidated billing’ is
the ‘billing’.
Billing usually means ‘demanding payment’ and/or ‘providing
tax evidence’ and the proper document to use in this instance is the Invoice;
known widely in this context as a ‘Consolidated Invoice’.
The most extreme
extreme example of this is the Purchasing Card which effectively consolidates
many Invoices from many suppliers into one billing file. The VISA XML
format for this file is ‘VGIS’ or the ‘VISA Global Invoice Standard’ recognising
the fact that, although many people think of it as the card ‘statement’, it is,
in fact, an Invoice; a demand from the card issuer for the card user
organisation to pay monies due (and regard particular elements of the file as
tax evidence).
The approach of linking Orders to Invoices at Line level
accommodates the consolidated invoicing approach.
The Statement in our model
is designed for information only and should not be confused with the
[Consolidated] Invoice. Anyone using the Statement for this purpose will
find that it does not contain some of the elements in the real Invoice, most
notably Tax.
Regards, M
Mark Leitch
From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization:
GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Wed, 14
Dec 2005 18:14:37 -0800
To:
<ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc]
Weights and measures in Order documents
All,
If the Statement is for information purposes only, what does a
company do that uses the Statement as the only billing document?. As an example
in the telecommunication industry, some very large well known providers refuse
invoices and only accept statements. This is what they pay from and it may
include allowances and charges. They will not pay from a document that is for
information purposes only. They call this Consolidated Billing. If the Statement
is for a single phone number or department and the allowance or charge applies
to the total amount, it may not be possible or practical to split this at the
line level.
Statement billing is also common in Professional Services industries.
The Statement is sent and no invoice is generated.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Peter Larsen Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
Sent: Wednesday,
December 14, 2005 3:18 AM
To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; Mikkel
Hippe Brun
Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order
documents
Hi PSC
Mark and I had a meeting this morning and we found out that the
values could have a meening in the order response, order response simple and the
depatch advide (perhaps even in the receipt advice). But it they should be
packaged into a RespondedQuantityTotal ABIE (or an other name e.g. document
Measure) so it is more clear what they are used for.
Mark think that TaxTotal in order response should not be qualified
with "proposed". He does not see the reason for qualifying it in the order
either. I would like it qualified in the order with "expected" in stead of
proposed.
We also found the need for clearifying that a UBL Statement is for
information purpose only. I can not be used a base for billing purpose like a
statemen from Euro card. Therefore we agree with Mikkel that it is a bad idea to
have AllowanceCahnge on a statement
For the fore simple issues on Mikkels list we found
that
-StatementDocumentReference should be
removed
-Order change should have a validityPeriod
-OrderChange should
have a reference to one and only one order.
-We should consider having only
one order for a order cancellation or note that this is best
practice.
-SellersOrderId must be changed to SalesOrderId and BuyersOrderId
to ID in Order Response
/Peter
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----
Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sendt:
14. december 2005 01:55
Til:
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Emne: [ubl-psc] Weights and
measures in Order documents
It was questioned why we had the
following items in the Order
ABIE.
TotalPackagesQuantity
GrossWeightMeasure
NetWeightMeasure
NetNetWeightMeasure
GrossVolumeMeasure
NetVolumeMeasure
They are there because they were inherited
in the original UBL from the xCBL Order Summary structure. And, to
date, no-one has challenged them.
The only past comments I could
find justifying this are:
This is particularly important for the
industries like tobacco where tax is calculated on the weight of the
cigarettes rather than on the retail
item.
(UBL 0p65 Jan 2002)
Note, that
they are not used in the UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset. Also they
are all optional and can be derived from the underlying Order Line Items
- they are derivative totals.
So unless we can get someone to
come up with a justification, it looks like we may drop
these.
--
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/
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]