Subject: Re: [ubl] How does an OrderResponseshow order acceptance/rejection?
Thanks Tim and Mark, I think you've got the issues well covered. I think what I'd suggest for the ebBP definition (having received a further comment from Denmark) is to just ignore the OrderResponse and stick to the OrderResponseSimple for the example (the OrderResponse business processing could be formidable to describe I guess so it would simplify things too). I guess the example needn't be comprehensive. All the best Steve >>> Tim McGrath <email@example.com> 10/11/05 08:38:36 >>> I agree this is a meaningful and beneficial issue to discuss, especially at this stage in UBL 2.0 development. At this stage no-one is proposing changing the Order Response Simple in UBL 2.0 - at least with regard to the AcceptedIndicator (we are proposing additional document references as an extension). So the issue you describe will remain with UBL 2.0. It does seem that allowing the Buyer Party to specify which type of response they get is illogical. But that isn't what we meant. What we were trying to do was indicate what the Buyer Party was capable of receiving automatically. If they say Order Response Simple and they are sent an Order Response they won't be able to process it. It is (and should be) the Seller Party who will decide whether to reject the Order, accept it as is or accept it with proposed changes. But currently, (in UBL 1.0) if the Buyer Party says they want an Order Response document then the Seller Party cannot (easily) indicate they reject the Order. Likewise, if the Buyer requests an Order Response Simple the Seller cannot (using UBL) propose modifications to the Order. They would have to do this using another form of document (eg paper or fax) or even ring up. The business process model needs to show this (ie. revert to manual process). So it isn't illogical - just incomplete in terms of UBL documents. I think the ebBP description should handle this. When it comes to what to do with UBL 2.0 we could review this process. When we added the Acknowledgement Response Code (and fixed it to the two UBL document types) we hadn't thought through that they may are not mutually exclusive and the process may need both (given the current definitions). We could consider extending the code list to allow both(or either). We have even discussed rationalizing these into one document type thus fixing the issue entirely. I felt this was radical but maybe it would make our life simpler. We could just add the AcceptedIndicator to OrderResponse and make most of the other components optional. So we can support the 'simple' implementation and a more complex one using the same document. But if we want to keep both documents then as another approach we should consider how we propose solving a similar issue with the Request for Catalogue document. This allows the Buyer to say whether they want a Price Update or Item Update document in response. But in that case we have defined two Indicators (PricingUpdateRequestIndicator and ItemUpdateRequestIndicator). This seems a better solution. Maybe for UBL 2.0 we could just have an Indicator in the Order to say whether and OrderResponseSimple and/or an OrderResponse can be accepted. Then we can drop the AcknowledgementResponseCode. Stephen Green wrote: >Hi Tim > >Yes, in UBL 2, and RejectionReasonNote (if that's what OrderResponseSimple has) >but my main point is to seek detail about the rules or implementation guidance for >UBL 1.0 such as can be used to improve the example ebBP definition (aware that >folk may try to base implementations on the example despite ernest warnings that >it is purely illustrative). Any suggestions? I guess we might want to be forwards >compatible with UBL 2 too as much as possible so maybe Denmark folk have suggestions >too (Mikkel offered in the call yesterday). I think this would be an excellent exercise >in any case and the outcome might be very useful to UBL implementers and designers, >let alone good for marketing - in mutual interest with ebBP of course. > >All the best > >Steve > > > >>>>Tim McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org> 10/11/05 00:15:43 >>> >>>> >>>> >is your proposal that Order Response also should have an AcceptedIndicator? > >Stephen Green wrote: > > > >>Greetings UBL TC >> >>This issue arises because the ebBP TC are seeking >>to improve their 'drop-ship' example of a business >>process definition for use of UBL 1.0 documents in >>a drop-ship or marketplace environment and I have >>pointed out the need to correct some of the details >>of the process's 'condition expressions' >> >>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200511/msg00024.html >> >>The condition expressions denote the conditions >>which act as the basis for decisions at forks in the >>process and acceptance or rejection of the order >>is a key one of these. >> >>The ebBP TC would welcome any help from the UBL >>TC in advising on these conditions. I would like to help >>pin down exactly how a UBL 1.0 Order, OrderResponse >>and OrderResponseSimple relate to each other in a >>typical process, for instance: >> >>Since the UBL 1.0 documentation states that the >>OrderResponseSimple is the document to use by >>the Seller to show rejection or acceptance of the >>order whereas it states that the OrderResponse is >>to be used to alter the line of the order (with no >>mention of using it to show acceptance or rejection >>and no apparent way in the document or lines of >>an OrderResponse to cater for this), I'd like to >>understand whether there is therefore a logical >>weakness, with 1.0, in using the OrderResponse >>enumeration of the AcknowledgementResponseCode >>in an Order. The latter would have the weakness, >>it seems, in limiting the response to just OrderResponse >>so that there is then no way to properly signal >>acceptance or rejection of the Order (in the business >>document layer). >> >>If this is a weakness, then this ebBP exercise, I think, >>is providing a good opportunity for UBL to receive >>valuable implementation feedback of sorts and it might >>be that it leads to improvements in 2.0 (for the second >>committee draft, at this stage, I suppose) and this particular >>case shows that we may need to question whether the >>2.0 process should emphasise the possibility of using >>the OrderResponse to show rejection/acceptance of an >>Order - the OrderResponseSimple does provide for this >>functionality but does the OrderResponse?. Alternatively >>we might want to ensure that OrderResponse has this >>functionailty and if not then, besides changing the >>documentation of the process, we might want to >>reconsider the inclusion in the Order, etc of the >>AcknowledgementResponseCode or reconsider its >>enumerations. >> >>All the best >> >>Stephen Green >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>"Stephen Green" <email@example.com> 09/11/05 11:18:24 >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>Looking at how all the documents of UBL 1.0 might >>be used together in a business process, I come across >>a problem: if the Order has its >>AcknowledgementResponseCode set to "OrderResponse" >>by the Buyer, how would the OrderResponse indicate >>whether the Order has been accepted or rejected? >>(OrderResponseSimple has AcceptedIndicator) >> >>Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this. >> >>All the best >> >>Stephen Green >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >>at: >>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >>at: >>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services http://www.docengineering.com/