[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: The use of Order Response
I changed the subject to something more specific. Sorry, Of course I meant 1..n. Yes, It would need to be 0..n if we have a document indicator for full accept. Regarding "Arrival of order". In sweden we use three different responses to orders (in edifact) - Message ack (a technical response (CONTRL)), Order acknowledgment (I acknowledge that the order has arrived and I know who you are and so on (ORDRSP), Order Response (A response to the actual order lines - with delivery dates and acceptance/rejections (ORDRSP)). The acknowledgment uses no lines and the response uses lines. /Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: Roberto Cisternino [mailto:roberto@javest.com] > Sent: den 23 november 2007 12:33 > To: Martin Forsberg > Cc: roberto@javest.com; 'Peter Borresen'; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals > > 1..n, > I see now. > > My opinion is the real error of OrderResponse is to require a line > item. > > Otherwise it could be correct to say the OrderResponse can be just an > ACK > (like the description says). > > I understand the OrderResponse description is not correct as the actual > response cannot be considered a simple aknowledge which should be > something like "I confirm the Order is arrived". > > Thanks Martin > > Roberto > > > > The cardinality of line is 0..n so it can't be done in the current > version > > > > /Martin > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Roberto Cisternino [mailto:roberto@javest.com] > >> Sent: den 23 november 2007 12:20 > >> To: Martin Forsberg > >> Cc: 'Peter Borresen'; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] UBL 2.0 Update proposals > >> > >> Hello, > >> can the OrderResponse without line items interpreted as a full > >> acceptance ? > >> > >> It will be just an ACK. > >> > >> Roberto Cisternino > >> > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > --- > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> UBL ITLSC > >> co-chair > >> Roberto Cisternino > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > UBL ITLSC > co-chair > Roberto Cisternino
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]