[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Naming of the Order Response document type
Tim McGrath wrote: > my take on this is that the questioner has confused message > acknowledgement with acceptance of an offer to sell goods. I think we > are safer to avoid the term acknowledgement in our document titles - > just to make it clear these are not a message acknowledgements. I > think the fact an Order Response can be a de-facto acknowledgement is > simply a feature of the communications stack, i.e. "/if i am sending > you a response i must have received your message/", but this > acknowledgement is implied not explicit. This is generally true. Acts of consent (reach the mind) is more relevant than acknowledge of receipt (reach the desk). > The first document type is what we know as an Order Response Simple > and could perhaps be called Order Acceptance. The problem we had with > this is that sometimes we use this document to reject an Order - so > the title is confusing. however, having read the CISG, i suggest (for > UBL 1.1) we make Order Acceptance an alternative Business Term for > Order Response Simple (we also currently have Order Acknowledgement > and PO Response as synonyms). The TC should then also consider to add Order Rejection as alternative business term. Looking att the Spreadsheet for OrderSimple and definition of AcceptedIndicator: "indicates whether the order was accepted (true) or not (false)." I suggest to change it to ... "indicates whether the order was accepted (true) or rejected (false)." since "not accepted" may not neccessary mean rejection. On a personal note I prefer two messages for Acceptance, Rejection. it makes the offer-acceptance intentions much clearer. Response is usually too generic to be part of anything else than query reponse pattern naming.. Another preferable alternative is to use the "positive" name of a binary message. In this case OrderAcceptance. > The latter document type is what we would call an Order Response and > could be called Counteroffer Order. I am not sure that is a common > use of the term but we could add it as another synonym to this > document type if enough people feel it is worthwhile. It is recommended to make clear that it is a new offer and that the "previous" Offer is Rejected. Adding a merger clause is also a good idea, that specifies that all prev. Orders are merged into the last new offer. /anders -- ///////////////////////////////////// / Business Collaboration Toolsmiths / / website: <www.toolsmiths.se> / / email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se> / / phone: +46 8 545 885 87 / / mobile: +46 70 546 66 03 / /////////////////////////////////////
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]