Minutes of the] UBL PSC meeting monday the 3rd of December 2012

["Peter L. Borresen" <plb@ebConnect.dk>]

Dear all please find the minutes of the meeting the 3^rd of December 2012

 

Participants:

Kees Duvekot, Arianna Brutti and Peter Borresen

 

Agenda:

1)      Review of definitions, see attachment

Answers for most questions has been given. The definition excel sheet needs to be filled out more consistently, so it gets more precise what the actual definition is. Peter and Tim will do the final editing.

2)      Issues found during the definition review, see sheet in attachment.

	Currrent	Proposed change	Resolution
Supplier Consumption. Description. Text	0.1	0..n	approved
Telecommunications Service. Roaming Partner Name. Text	Text	Change to Name	approved
Telecommunications Supply. Description. Text	0..1	0..n	approved
Utility Item. Subscriber Identifier. Identifier		remove the IdentifierType and IdentifierTypeCode, use agentcy instead	Change SubscriberIDType to SubscriberType and SubscriberIDTypeCode to SubscriberTypeCode
Budget Amount		Change name to RequestedTenderTotal	approved
EvidenceSuppliedID	0..1	0..n	approved
ContractExecutionRequirement	0..n	0..1	approved
Correction		change name to ConsumptionCorrection	approved
Evidence. Name		Change Name to text	approved
Evaluation Criteria. _expression_ Code. Code	0..n	It should be 0..1 and add am _expression_. Text 0..n	approved
Power Of Attorney. Notary_ Party. Party		In some states of the U.S., power of attorney requires either two witnesses or a notary, and in others it requires one witness and one notary. Perhaps we should add a WitnessParty of 0..n and make this 0..1?	approved
Qualification Resolution. Admission Code. Code		THIS IS AN INDICATOR, NOT A CODE.	check with Oriol
Regulation. Name	1..n	1..n names? Shouldn't this be "The name of this regulation"?	approved
Tender Requirement. Name	0..n	The name of this tender requirement. 1	approved

 

3)      Request to add Party role code to Party

Rejected. The Party role is by design applied as qualification

4)      Issues from Akara:

        - The cardinality of "/Invoice/cac:OrderReference" is "0..1". In Turkey,

        an invoice may refer to multiple orders. Therefore, the cardinality of

        this element should be "0..n".

Rejected. If an invoice apply to more than one orders then the orderreference should be applied on the line level

        - The cardinality of "/Invoice/cac:WithholdingTaxTotal" and

          "/Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:WithholdingTaxTotal" is "0..1". In

        Turkey, an invoice (and its lines) may contain multiple withholdings.

        Therefore, the cardinality of these element should be "0..n".

Approved

5)      Any other business

None

 

Best regards

 

Peter