[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] ISS-11 and ISS-9 revisited (and clarification)
There are many solutions for this. I will try to list some: 1) The generic solution a) Rename LegalTotal to Total and qualify the Total in each document or just rename it to DocumentTotal and do not qualify it. b) Change the cardinallity for PayableAmount and leave it up to verious guideline specs the strengthen it. 2) The simplified solution a) change the cadinallity for LegalTotal to [0..1] for documents where you might not know the payable amount. 3) The profiled solution a) add a new type a total similar to LegalTotal with a changed cardinallity that match the customer sending documents (as suggested). b) Apply the new total types to the proper documents. /Peter -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] Sendt: 22. august 2006 03:09 Til: 'ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org' Emne: [ubl-psc] ISS-11 and ISS-9 revisited (and clarification) i don't really want to revisit past decisions but while documenting the changes proposed for these two issues (the LegalTotal ones) i realized something. I had written down... * create "AnticipatedTotal" that has the same structure as LgealTotal but PayableAmount is optional and LineExtensionAmount is mandatory. * Order and Order Change use AnticipatedTotal and it is optional. * Order Response uses legalTotal and it is optional. * Invoice uses LegalTotal and it is mandatory (as it is already) * Quotation uses LegalTotal and it is mandatory however it occurs to me there may be a more elegant solution. there are some weaknesses with what we proposed. * firstly, the names LegalTotal and AnticipatedTotal are not very meaningful as it does not say total of what. we assume it means total amounts but the name doesn't give us that. * secondly, why can't AnticipatedTotal be the same cardinalities as LegalTotal? why have LineExtensionAmount mandatory when you may just as well make PayableAmount mandatory? The buyer is as much able to specify one as the other. * finally, we also need to decide how to deal with other document types that use LegalTotal, viz. Credit Note, Debit Note, Self Billing Credit Note, Reminder, Freight Invoice this leads me to think we need only one structure for Totals. we could call it something like TotalAmount or MonetaryTotal or FinancialTotal. and if you use it you must have a PayableAmount. we then qualify its use: Quotation has Quoted_TotalAmount (and it is mandatory, 1..1) Order and OrderChange has Anticipated_TotalAmount (and it is optional, 0..1) Order Response has Legal_TotalAmount (and it is optional, 0..1) Invoice,Self Billed Invoice, Credit Note, Self Billing Credit Note, Reminder, Freight Invoice have Legal_TotalAmount (and it is mandatory 1..1) Debit Note has Requested_TotalAmount (and it is mandatory, 1..1) Does this seem a worthy alternative (given the terms may be refined a bit more)? Can we discuss it Wednesday? -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]