Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Similar to the situation we had with Goods Item and Transport Equipment, 
we will need some documents to have "One Shipment- Many Consignments" 
and others to have "One Consignment-Many Shipments".

What you propose could become part of the document name qualifier, e.g. 
"a single-consignment-shipment waybill", but at the BIE level we need to 
ensure the correct associations exist.

At one time we did have Shipment containing one or more optional 
Consignments and Consignment containing one or more optional Shipments.  
We might want to reintroduce this idea, but it would mean documenting 
the integrity rules about how these should be used.


Andrew Schoka wrote:
> 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