[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] The use of Order Response
it does suggest to me that the OrderResponseSimple is being used as OrderAcknowledgement - so maybe it is just that the title is wrong? Martin Forsberg wrote: > 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 >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > -- 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]