[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?)AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2
Hello Michael, I apologize for not catching your original mail, which came during our break, so was lost in the large quantity of mail I had when I returned. I will add this. Thanks, -Anne dill2@gefeg.com wrote: > 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 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]