Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-comment] Public Comment

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

One important aspect of such a container is the ability to provide
amount totals (Tax, etc) for a whole file. This sort of thing is not
approporiate for the envelope, is it? This is very important for
countries which have rules requiring Tax totals for whole files.
Without such a container with totals, users would have to invent
one and then we'd lose the benefits of standardization. Or else
folk would have to have just one document per file because they
would not be able to provide totals with confidence of their being
read at the other end (*very* important for file totals).

I'm in favour of this for 1.1 but aware that it might go unused if
it becomes acceptable to Tax departments to allow files without
file totals (file totals being inherited from EDI where summary
documents of a file are required by some).

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Gutentag" <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>
To: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
Cc: <elau@walmart.com>; <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-comment] Public Comment


> Unless the intention of the suggestion is to have a container for what
> we have for document types, e.g.:
>
> <orders>
>    <order>
>    ...
>    </order>
>    <order>
>    ...
>    </order>
> </orders>
>
> But would a raw container with no further metadata or even real data
> be of much use? I'm not sure.
>
>
>
> On 04/15/2004 08:56 PM, Tim McGrath wrote:
> > you are certainly correct in recognizing the xCBL heritage - it was our
> > starting point.
> >
> > we also agree with your comments on sets of documents being exchanged.
> > however, this is mechanism best left to the transport, routing and
> > packaging layer of the exchange protocol (eg. ebXML MS).  as all such
> > system handle this differently, it is just adding to the confusion to
> > suggest it be defined (once again) in the content vocabulary.
> >
> > comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote:
> >
> >> Comment from: elau@walmart.com
> >>
> >> Hi took a look at the UBL v1 beta and notice that it is very similar
> >> to xCBL.  I did work on and help define xCBL 3.0.
> >>
> >> A suggestion to you is for all the business documents you need to
> >> provide a way to send a LIST of the same type of document.  One of the
> >> limitation of xCBL is that transact one document at a time.  We the
> >> business need to send a batch of documents of the same type.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
> >> ubl-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
> Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
> Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php
.
>
>