RE: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals

["Martin Forsberg" <martin.forsberg@ecru.se>]

I agree that it is unclear how to use an OrderResponse as a full acceptance,
but I think it's because the lack of some code values or alternatively a new
indicator. I don't agree that OrderResponseSimple should be the only way of
giving full acceptance/rejection. 

I don't think it is a good idea to change message type just because you
accept 10 of 10 lines, and another message type when accepting 9 of 10
lines. So by giving the OrderResponse ability to clearly indicate full
acceptance (on document level and/or on each line) UBL would align better to
both existing systems and to existing standards like EDIFACT. That would
also make conversion easier since you don't have to change message type if
10 out of 10 lines in the EDIFACT message are accepted.

I see the two message types (OrderResponse/OrderResponseSimple) as responses
used in different types of order processes. 

/Martin Forsberg
Ecru Consulting

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
> Sent: den 23 november 2007 11:43
> To: Martin Forsberg; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals
> 
> Martin,
> 
> I am not sure you agree.
> 
> I said there are two ways of doing it:
> 
> 1) A generic OrderResponse document that can be used both as response
> the
> lines and the order as a whole
> 2) Two seperate documents, one for each purposes.
> 
> I think you go for 1, where I think 2 is the most simple solution.
> 
> If you go for number, you must specify business rules that handles the
> conflics I mentioned below.
> 
> /Peter
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Martin Forsberg [mailto:martin.forsberg@ecru.se]
> Sendt: 22. november 2007 15:59
> Til: Peter Borresen; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Emne: RE: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I agree - there is something missing in OrderResponse to make a clear
> statement whether you accept or not. In EDIFACT and in the future
> cefact
> order, you have a response type on header-level (document level) and on
> line
> level where the status is given.
> 
> /Martin
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
> > Sent: den 22 november 2007 15:08
> > To: Martin Forsberg; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals
> >
> > Hi Martin
> >
> > Then, maybe you can help me anwering a question: How can you tell
> > whether nothing has changed from the Order to the OrderRepesponse?
> > When are two instances of theese to different messages alike?
> >
> > An acknowledging ordering flow must end with an OrderResponseSimple.
> > To my mind OrderResponseSimple is not a simple version of
> > orderResponse, but a document, that ends the ordering process.
> >
> > Putting an AcceptIndication into OrderResponse will redefine both
> > documents.
> > I am not sure we agreed on this in NES (becaused we sticked to the
> > orderResponseSimple), but I am sure that I managed to convince Mark
> > that There was a need for OrderResponseSimple, or orderResponse
> > Stupid, as he called it.
> >
> > Let's say that we have an AcceptIndicator in OrderReponse. If that
> one
> > is set to true and one of the lines has changed. What does it means?
> > Or opposite if the AcceptIndicator is false and nothing has changed?
> > Accepting or rejecting the Order as a whole is a diffenrent scope
> than
> > the OrderResponse, which really is an OrderLineRespose Sample.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: Martin Forsberg [mailto:martin.forsberg@ecru.se]
> > Sendt: 22. november 2007 14:23
> > Til: Peter Borresen; 'Tim McGrath'; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Emne: RE: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I must disagree with your disagreement :)
> >
> > *****
> > PLB: I disagree with this because, it conflicts with the use of
> > OrderResponse. OrderReponse is allways used when something in the
> > order is not accepted, otherwise the OrderResponseSimple (OrderAccept
> > + OrderReject´as one document) is used.
> > *****
> >
> > You can make a full accept with OrderResponse (no changes on any
> lines
> > or accept with changes). If the seller substitutes an item, based on
> > the buyers proposal, then I would say the OrderResponse is an
> > acceptance. Or does it say somewhere that only OrderResponseSimple
> can
> > be used for full accept/reject? I know we've had this discussionen in
> > NES, but I can't remember the outcome.
> >
> > /Martin
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
> in
> > OASIS
> > at:
> > https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php