OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-psc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] [ubl-psc] [ubl] Re: [ubl-psc] Re: [ubl] ProposedChangelog and Action Items for PRD2 to PR

Sorry Tim, 

now I'm even more confused and perplexed.

Quote "..if you are going to use MonetaryTotal" confuses me. Is the "you"
here the modeller or the invoicer? The qualifiers seem to be a bit
of a side issue. It still seems to still leave the invoicer having to provide
a PayableAmount (as a mandatory part of the mandatory MonetaryTotal
aggregate), even if that is not known at the time the document is
created. This therefore ignores, it seems, my issue. Is there a hope that
the added semantics of the qualifier will help? I'm not at all convinced it 

In fact I now think there may be even more cause for concern with
this decision than there was before when considering the Order, etc.
Making the MonetaryTotal optional for orders doesn't help at all if the
MonetaryTotal itself includes a mandatory PayableAmount because
then using MonetaryTotal at all forces the order placer to provide the
PayableAmount which they might not know. The only way it would make
some sense is if another Total aggregate is also provided (without a 
mandatory PayableAmount) and that would surely just add to the confusion.

I got the impression from the original resolution in ISS-11 that there
would be AnticipatedTotal rather than AnticipatedMonetaryTotal (the
latter 'inheriting' a mandatory PayableAmount) in Order, etc. Are you saying
there will be both? Or is the only way to provide an order total now to
include a mandatory payable amount. That would be back to where it
was before the issues.



>>> Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 25/08/06 12:57:53 >>>
sorry for that (and well spotted).  I updated the item in the All Issues 
sheet and did not copy it into the Action sheet.  Please take it that 
what it says in the All Issues is the Actions.

That is....

> Change LegalTotal to MonetaryTotal and qualify its use:
> Quotation has Quoted_MonetaryTotal (and it is mandatory, 1..1)
> Order and OrderChange has Anticipated_MonetaryTotal (and it is 
> optional, 0..1)
> Order Response has Legal_MonetaryTotal (and it is optional, 0..1)
> Invoice,Self Billed Invoice, Credit Note, Self Billing Credit Note, 
> Reminder, Freight Invoice have Legal_MonetaryTotal (and it is 
> mandatory 1..1)
> Debit Note has Requested_MonetaryTotal (and it is mandatory, 1..1)

I hope that also clarifies my response to your earlier comment.  The 
idea here is that if you are going to use MonetaryTotal then you must at 
least know the PayableAmount.  That is why PayableAmount remains 
mandatory.  Obviously on many documents you may not know this and so 
MonetaryAmount itself is optional.  But on some documents they don't 
make sense without a MonetaryAmount and therefore they must have a 

PS. Peter can you make note of this and update your Action on this issue.

Stephen Green wrote:

>I've been looking in the actions list (I didn't see a 'changelog')
>for mention of what you've called the 'new Legal Monetary Total'
>(for Invoice) and all I could find was the following (under ISS-11)
>" * 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 "
>Is there any documentation of the proposed Legal Monetary Total?
>>>>"Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 25/08/06 09:56:04 >>>
>Hi Tim
>I think you might have misunderstood,
>the issue is
>"whether even Invoice should have PayableAmount as mandatory"
>In other words, should PayableAmount in LegalTotal (or whatever
>the document level totals in Invoice get called) be mandatory? I
>say absolutely not. Your idea for the Order, etc of an anticipated
>total which is not necessarily the actual payable total is also more
>like what an invoice needs except that there are legally binding
>aspects of invoice totals which are not quite like what you have 
>decided for orders, etc.
>1. should invoices have a catch all mandatory amount?
>- i appreciate the desire to have a mandatory amount but which
>of the amounts that should be would differ from invoice to invoice
>2. should the payable amount be mandatory?
>- this is the one amount which is particularly not always possible to
>state in some invoices
>3. should there be something like payable amount which is mandatory
>but has different semantics?
>- i think this is just confusing things
>4. should there be a payable amount which is optional?
>- i think so
>The need is to have a payable amount for some instances of invoice or,
>in line with 3 (so here i'd advise caution that there could be confusion)
>there could be an anticipated payable amount but even that would be
>inappropriate for some invoice instances so it shouldn't be mandatory
>either. In short, the nature of invoice, it seems to me, is such that the
>specific total which is appropriate differs from instance to instance subject
>to strict but complex and divers rules. Trying to embody such rules into
>to schema, other than in a relaxed way, is likely, i think, to result in
>an over-engineered and often unusable (without problematic workarounds)
>base standard. Hence I advise not making either amount mandatory.
>All the best
>>>>Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 25/08/06 00:17:27 >>>
>maybe this is just semantics. 
>the new Legal_MonetaryTotal in the Invoice is the legal total up to the 
>point where circumstances dictate a change (as you say, additional 
>allowance and charges).  what we are saying is that if you have an 
>Invoice there will be a MonetaryTotal and without any other evidence it 
>should be considered the Legal_ MonetaryTotal.
>so is it the term "legal" that concerns you or the fact it is mandatory?
>if the former, then what is a better term?
>if the latter, then could we ever have an invoice with no amount totals?
>Stephen Green wrote:
>>Just to point out that there is still a significant outstanding aspect to
>>ISS-11 which is the last bit
>>" Indeed,I question whether even Invoice should have PayableAmount as mandatory since sometimes the PayableAmount isn't known until the invoice is being paid (there could be allowances and charges which are not known until then due to some being conditional on payment date, etc)."
>>This doesn't seem to me to be resolved in the disposition and could
>>cause problems for a very large group of invoicers whose invoice
>>payable totals are not known at the time of invoicing. This happens when,
>>for instance, the allowance/charge is unknown at the time of invoicing
>>(as is allowed for in the UBL 2 allowance/charge which caters for dependencies
>>of the amount on certain conditions such as payment within a certain time.
>>This is *very* common in invoicing.
>>In UK, tax rules, for instance, allow for this by ruling that certain
>>situations of such charges do not affect the TaxTotal. But they
>>do of course not prevent the need for a non-fixed PayableTotal. 
>>I would see this as very difficult to fix in a minor release so it seems
>>very pressing for UBL 2. I can't really ignore it as it impacts so much
>>on allowance for proper invoice usage with UBL 2 and UBL 2's invoice
>>being fit-for-purpose'
>>Much obliged
>>>>>Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 24/08/06 07:28:51 >>>
>>The attached spreadsheet describes the issues from PRD2 and their 
>>resolution for PRD3 together with a separate sheet indicating the 
>>actions and persons responsible.
>>Can those who have action items work on these over the next few days and 
>>give a progress report at the TC meetings next week.
>>It would also be useful to have others check we have covered everything 
>>required from the PRD2 review.

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]