[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement
Tim, etal, Thanks for adding additional insight into a continuing struggle that I have understanding the distinction between Shipment and Consignment. I personally believe that the UNTDED established definitions need to be embellished so that there can be a broader community understanding and acceptance. I guess those who work with the terms on a day to day basis already have context in place and so don't have a problem. I think the problem is further complicated by the constraints of the information modeling tools and conventions and possible limitations when trying to characterize the relationship between the two terms. In my opinion an extended characterization of the "one-to-many" and the "many-to-one" relationships is needed along with additional verbiage that gets to the real intent. If the relationship between shipment and consignment is many-to-many then perhaps there is a better way of presenting it; maybe through the inclusion of explanatory modifiers to the terms shipment and consignment. By this I mean can we use terms something like single_consignment_shipment, multiple_consignments_shipment, split_consignment_shipment? Conversely could we use singly_shipped_consignment, multiply_shipped_consignment? Hope this doesn't seem too unconventional....... Regards, Andy -----Original Message----- From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 9:09 PM To: Flemming Møller Hansen Cc: Dominique Vankemmel; fmh@progrator.dk; heikki.laaksamo@tieke.fi; Henk Van MAAREN; ihu@ds.dk; kvp@itsts.dk; Michael.Onder@dot.gov; ralph.ho@tradelink.com.hk; roberto@javest.com; ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement Thanks for your comments. I will review them over the next few days. In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean by shipment and consignment. This has been almost impossible to clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of definition I personally believe that the distinction between these two is grey and ambiguous in the industry. The correct term depends on the context in which it is used. Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract document". And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments" However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one collection of goods items. So we have viewed the Shipment as the logistical collection of goods items. Just as there are cases where a Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into different Shipments (for economics or ease of logistics). The TBG3 high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not. Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A Consigment can be transported in different Shipments". In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation is academic. However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One Shipment - Many Consignments. In which case it does matter that we get the separation correct. This is a further argument for adopting the simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions. Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and Orders). It means any properties that may affect or vary with the actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the Shipment. Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only (what is required). Does that help? Flemming Møller Hansen wrote: > Hi Tim! > > I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment. > > The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from the > danish requirements/proposals point of view > belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment. > There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can get > my answer: > > Notice: > We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple > consignments. > The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple > consignments. > > May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before we > continue? > > Who have the correct definitions available? > > (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls) > > Best regards/ > Med venlig hilsen > PROGRATOR > > Flemming Møller Hansen > eBusiness Consultant > ==================================================== > EDI & Business Integration > > MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød > Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037 > Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965 > > http://www.progrator.dk > ==================================================== > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date: 7/07/2007 3:26 PM > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date: 7/7/2007 3:26 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 7/8/2007 6:32 PM
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]