[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Meeting in the UBL PSC
|
Martin, You are now proposing is that the LineItemType should be split into 2 distinct types with different cardinality where one has Item as a mandatory element, and the other as an optional element? And
then use that new type (with optional item) as the type for all the elements under a OrderLine in OrdeResponse? Would that not also cause 2 different OrderLineTypes? I see this “ballooning” into more changes ….. If you are sending a response based on a original UBL order document that you received, then you have all the information that is needed to populate the item element as it was in the original order. If the OrderResponse is the first UBL document (the order was given via the phone for example, or other non UBL means) then you also really need a Item element so that the buyer can determine if
you will deliver the right item And when you want to propose a different item then the one requested (cac:SellerProposedSubstituteLineItem or cac:SellerSubstitutedLineItem element) you really need to populate a complete item element
.. so there it should be mandatory? If you only want to say “Accepted” (or not) why don’t you use OrderResponseSimple? Or do you need to say this on a per line basis? Then we could add an optional OrderLineResponseSimple element to
that document? So something like OrderLineResponseSimple cbc:AcceptedIndicator cac:OrderLineReference etc etc Kees Van: Martin Forsberg [mailto:martin.forsberg@ecru.se]
Hi Kees, The issue occurs in the OrderResponse, where a line doesn’t restate the Item, only refer to the order. When accepting an orderline we refer to the order line, use a code saying accept and that’s
it. Since the “Item” element inside the “LineItem” element is mandatory, we end up with an empty element (which is not allowed according to the NDR). In other documents (like Invoce, Order, Catalogue) a mandatory Item makes full sense, but not in this particular
document. I hope this clarifies the issue! /Martin Från:
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org]
För Duvekot, Kees Peter, Can you please provide me with additional information around point 1 of the agenda? I feel that making “item” optional is a big deviation from what we are currently used too. So I would like to understand the issue/ reasoning behind this request in more detail before I can form
my opinion about this point. Kees Van:
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org]
Namens Peter L. Borresen Dear all I would like to call in for a Meeting tomorrow November 16th at 11.00-11.45 CET Agenda 1)
Making item optional in lineitem, issue by Martin 2)
Completion of the definition review 3)
Updates of cardinalities found during the definition review. 4)
Any other business The meeting will be held at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/714594514 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Australia: +61 (0) 2 9037 1944 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 0034 Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 9321 Canada: +1 (647) 977-5956 Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 80 05 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 1746 France: +33 (0) 182 880 780 Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159 Ireland: +353 (0) 15 290 180 Italy: +39 0 699 26 68 58 Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 908 267 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 442 7358 Norway: +47 21 54 32 44 Spain: +34 911 23 0850 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0006 96 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611 United States: +1 (773) 945-1031 Access Code: 714-594-514 Meeting ID: 714-594-514 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Best regards Peter L. Borresen |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]