AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2

[<dill2@gefeg.com>]

Anne,

sorry, next time I'll mention explicitely, if something is a comment for the issue list.

Please do me the favor to add my comments to 18.2. At least the topic 2/  and 3/b refer directly and immediately to 18.2 I think, it is worth to be considered as a comment, if somebody disagree with the existing proposal as of the issue list and if this somebody wrote arguments.

 

Dear All,

please let me underline that Issue list line 113 with the Commend Id 'b.1' is a very basic issue for CCTS compliance and should be considered as an UBL 1.0 issue

Thanks

Michael

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: dill2@gefeg.com [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 19:14
An: 'Tim McGrath'
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2

I think that this discussion has been addressing different points:

 

1/ Tim,  you are obviously making a point about ASBIEs in general.

 

2/ In 18.2 Yukinori Saito is raising a Controlled Vocabulary issue and he proposes replacement of Customer by Seller. But shouldn't the replacement proposed be Buyer instead? 

 

3/ I am talking about BBIEs and the UBL data model itself. There are two issues:

 

a) CCTS compliance

 

The DEN and definition should always match each other. In the cases of the two BBIEs that Yukinori Saito refers to,  namely 'MaximumBackOrderQuantity and MinimumBackOrderQuantity in LineItem (ABIE)', the DENs and definitions do not match, as required by CCTS. Either i) the DEN is correct in which case the model is OK but the definition should not include any mention of customer (or seller or...) or ii) the definition is correct in which case the UBL data model DEN needs changing and as a consequence the UBL data model will need to be changed. A new ABIE is required which will enable specific BBIEs to be defined to include the concept of 'Customer (Seller?Buyer) approved' in their name as an extra qualification.

 

b) The UBL business requirement

 

I do not understand from a business perspective why a seller should ever approve a backorder quantity to be backordered. IMHO it is a customer (buyer) who may do this.

But in any case I even tend to disagree that any party role is pertinent to this definition and therefore I favour case a) i) i.e. the removal of the concept of party from the definition, as a proposed solution to this issue.

 

Michael

 

BTW:

> The EDIFIX view  you attached is not showing the correct definitions.
Please let me draw your attention to the reason of the EDIFIX view I sent: It shows the four places where the Line Item.Details is reused. And this is what the text of the email said. And the definition an user can see is correct. And there is just one definition and not many. (Where I was not correct is to use the term ABIE inestead of ASBIE.)

 

 

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Juli 2004 03:56
An: Michael Dill
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2

i think what you are talking about is the definitions of the ASBIE for Line Item. Details.  That is, where Line Item. Details is re-used it has a different definitions.

So the place to look for its different usages is at the ASBIE level.  We dont need a qualifier as the context of the ABIE in which the ASBIE appears gives that.

The qualification (if any) of any ABIE happens when it is re-used (ie when it is used in an ASBIE)  so that is where the qualifers should be.

So we have things like...

ASBIE Order Line. Line Item.  defined as "information directly relating to a line item of a transaction. It identifies the item but only includes details about the item that are pertinent  to one occurrence on a line item, e.g. quantity etc."

ASBIE Order Line. Seller Proposed_ Substitute Line Item.  defined as "the item(s) that the seller proposes for the substitution - the original ordered quantity, pricing etc, which may be different from the substituted item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment details etc will be the same."

ASBIE Order Line. Seller Substituted_  Line Item.     defined as "item(s) replaced by the seller - the original ordered quantity, pricing etc which may be different from the substituted item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment details etc will be the same."
and
ASBIE Order Line. Buyer Proposed_ Substitute Line Item.  defined as "alternative item(s) acceptable to the buyer - quantity, pricing etc which may be different from the preferred item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment details etc will be the same."

Al  these are re-uses of LineItem. Details.  All have defintions that relate to their re-use.  None require any qualification of the object class.  The qualification is of the property term (in other words the target object class) of the ASBIE.  The EDIFIX view  you attached is not showing the correct definitions.

Saito-san's question is not related to definitions - it is terminology.  elsewhere  we refer to seller party but in one place we use the term customer - clearly this was an oversight and re-inforces the need for a controlled vocabulary.

Michael Dill wrote:

Hi Anne, hi TC,
please let me propose to add the following comment for this item 18,2 of
Yukinori Saito:
Yukinori Saito wants to change 'customer' to 'seller party'. Behind this we
do have a very basic conceptual question. The definitions in question of
e.g. Line Item. Maximum_ Backorder. Quantity is defined in reusable 'Line
Item. Details'.
Line Item. Details is directly reused in four other ABIEs (see attached
*.doc file). The very basic definition as of the Reusable Library cannot
express the specific needs of these four reusages.

IF UBL agrees that definitions shall be meaningful, THEN a place is needed
where these meaningful definitions shall be written. The current structure
of the spreadsheets does not allow this, but CCTS does requires this, I
think.

There are three or four ABIE needed, which base on 'Line Item. Details'.
These ABIE should restrict the underlying one and can have more specific
definitions due to the specifis usage.

In such a case, they need an Object Class Term Qualifier.IMHO this is what
Mark also mentioned in one of his emails.


Best regards,
Michael
  

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.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160