[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 28|29 November 2005
Hi All With reference to Ken's question: GKH: Can the new transport docs replace Despatch and Receipt Advice? TM: No; the new structures are much bigger. I would like to add that there are fundamental differences between the Despatch Advice/Receipt Advice and the transport documents. The Despatch Advice and Receipt Advice are Trade documents i.e. data exchanges between buyer and seller within the Supply Chain ordering and despatch processes. The Despatch Advice functions are: to advise of the detailed contents of a shipment where a shipment may consist of a partial sales order, a complete sales order or multiple sales orders. The message relates to one seller and one buyer or their respective agents. The message relates to a single despatch point and single or multiple destination points. It may cover a number of different items or packages. It allows the recipient to: - know when the material has been despatched or will be ready for despatch - have the precise details of the shipment particularly how it is packaged e.g. use as a packing list. - provide initial Customs clearance information in the case of international shipments - enable matching between despatched goods and the following receipt advice for invoicing. The Receipt Advice functions are: to report the physical receipt of goods. The message allows for the reporting of discrepancies in products, quantities, terms, packages, etc. and to report damages etc. The message may simply report that the received shipment is completely in line with the shipment information provided in the Despatch advice message i.e. confirmation thsat all goods were received as despatched. Otherwise The message may inform about any discrepancies: - between the received shipment and the shipment information given in the Despatch Advice message. - between the received goods and the ordered goods defined in the Order message. In either case the Receipt Advice can be used to define which items should be invoiced or for defining a self-billed invoice. The detailed level of the Despatch Advice and the Receipt Advice are the Line Items of the Order or Orders within the depatched/received shipment concerned. By contrast the transport messages are documents exchanged between consignor, consignee and Carrier (or Transport Supplier)within the Supply Chain transport processes. The transport messages exchange consignment information rather than shipment information. A consignment of goods is the subject of a Transport Contract between the Transport Services Buyer (Buyer or Seller depending on the agreed Terms of Delivery) and the Transport Services Buyer. The relationship between shipments and consignments is very important. A consignment can be part of a shipment, a complete shipment or multiple shipments. The detailed level of transport documents are Goods Items which have common Customs or Transport related characteristics. Each goods item can consist of one or more line items. As shipments are related to orders as described above, there is definable set of relationships between order, shipments and consignments and also between goods items and line items. These relationships and the identifiers of the different information layers e.g. consignment ref, shipment ref, order ref, line item no and goods item etc. are vitally important in order to provide automatic trace and track along the transport chain and also to provide Customs organisations with the new security information which is required for the protection of goods in transit worldwide. regards Sue -----Original Message----- From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com] Sent: 29 November 2005 22:57 To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 28|29 November 2005 MINUTES OF PACIFIC UBL TC MEETING 00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005 ATTENDANCE Jon Bosak (chair) Stephen Green G. Ken Holman Tim McGrath Andy Schoka Sylvia Webb STANDING ITEMS Additions to the calendar: http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm TM: Note the eEurope Award given the team from Denmark for their UBL implementation! http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200511/msg00132.html GKH: Presentation to Canadian government people went very well; have been invited back to present to a different group. Liaison report: ebBP TC SG: Just completed a draft of a set of about 24 definitions that should cover both SGS and UBL proper through the different aspects of ordering. Will now be working with Sascha Schlegel from Cyclone Commerce to finish. Subcommittee report: SBSC JB: We're supposed be looking at the submission this week. AS: Re fundamental definitions: TM referred to a doc from TBG3 that contained definitions harmonizing the UNTDED with the WCO model; could this be relevant to SG? TM: The definitions are actually from the UNTDED (ISO 7372). TBG3 have taken this controlled vocabulary and compared it with the WCO model, which identifies key information components for customs documents. But the comparison deals mainly with international trade and transport. You would have to go to the full UNTDED for supply chain. SG: Biggest issue for SBS 2 is whether we should include transport documents; maybe those need to be subsetted. TM: Probably not in the first phase; if you are going to do international trade, you need more than a subset. But we should consider extending the SBS to cover extended procurement. The introduction of the transport docs is going to affect some of the procurement docs. ACTION: SG to send mail to MHB and JosteinF asking for assistance with subsetting Catalogue for SBS 2.0. GKH: Can the new transport docs replace Despatch and Receipt Advice? TM: No; the new structures are much bigger. GKH: HISC will be looking at all the new doc types. TM: The four original transportation docs have UNLKs; the other three should not be difficult. Perhaps the UNDOT requirements could serve to define a subset of the transportation docs. SG: SBSC has developed a methodology that can be applied to subsets other than ours; you can have different subsets depending on context. ACTION: AS to review the SBS to see whether the methodology is applicable to USDOT subsetting. Liaison report: UN/CEFACT JB: Met last week, but nothing from OASIS management yet. We will meet again 7 December. Subcommittee report: HISC GKH: Still on hold pending completion of the code list work. ACTION: JB to continue looking for XForms support. Team report: Code Lists GKH: Met in Atlanta with TonyC. Thinks seem to be working, just need to finish the documentation. Have posted the first part; does anyone think I'm off on a tangent? SG: Think it's fine. GKH/SG: Is the plural of "schema" "schemas" or "schemata"? JB: I prefer "schemas," but the OED prefers "schemata." Since we're using Oxford English, it will have to be "schemata." GKH: Can the first code list methodology document be a UBL 1.0 CD? JB: Need to discuss in the Atlantic call. GKH: Was TonyC looking to UBL to standardize genericode, or do we just point to it? JB: Need to discuss in the Atlantic call. AGREED that we think it would be a good idea to standardize the format (because otherwise we can't normatively reference it). GKH: Have adapted docbook stylesheets for UBL, so can now produce OASIS PDF layout for committee specs from docbook. Subcommittee report: PSC TM: Have distributed a first set of schemata with incomplete content to begin EF testing. Currently working on improving the definitions in the spreadsheets and the application of naming rules; there are a couple of ongoing issues that we're almost done with. The doc Application Response will subsume the former Account Response. Trying to finish draft 11 this week, which we hope will be the final one. The draft will include the change log. Subcommittee report: TSC TM: As in PSC, holding 2-3 meetings a week. Quality is very good; continuing to simplify the model. We're finding that many things in the Procurement library are actually shared with Transport and will therefore end up in the Common library; we're almost ready to make that transfer. We're hoping to have final spreadsheets by the end of next week and to produce the approved spreadsheets and process model the week of 12/12. TM: Document Reference in 2.0 is more sophisticated than in 1.0. We see three varieties: 1. External document reference, where you simply assign a name or identifier to a doc that exists in another place; 2. A reference to a doc that is included in the exchange, so that the Document Reference has to be able to identify a doc that goes with it; 3. Embedded document, where you want to say that this doc is included in the bounds of the one you're seeing. To address all three cases, it's been suggested that we promote Document Reference (currently an ABIE) to the status of a doc type -- a wrapper so that you can send any document in a UBL Document Reference. GKH: Or more than one. TM: Yes. Question: Does it make sense to have this new doc type, Document Reference? It's already in the library; do we want to promote it to root? We don't care about the actual content; it could be a BLOB inside. JB: Don't understand why we're trying to create MIME multipart inside a UBL document. ACTION: TM to post this question to the list. Team report: Digital Signatures TM: Digsig is actually an example of the third case above. We want to include in our doc a piece of text, the digsig; sometimes we want it attached as in case 2, or sometimes just reference it. PB is proposing to take the digsig model proposed by CrimsonLogic, but instead of having a digsig ABIE, use an attached Document Reference. So you could use any of the three approaches -- you're just referencing another doc. PB will have a conversation with CL before we proceed with this. Review of Atlantic and Europe/Asia calls TM: Since TSC and PSC are meeting 2-3 times a week, we don't need the Europe/Asia calls. People are not using them to maintain voting status (the original purpose). Propose we suspend them till further notice. AGREED to suspend the Europe/Asia TC calls. ACTION: TM to notify the list. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION: SG and SW to create a UBL UDT spreadsheet that describes everything in the ATG2 UDT schema, ignoring what UBL currently has for UDT and QDT, and then create the UBL QDT using the same structure. SW: Still pending. ACTION: SG and SW to manually update the CC parameter schema. SG: Atlantic call decided not to import the module. SW: We need to see this reflected in the NDRs. OTHER BUSINESS TM: We no longer have a liaison with ATG2. JB: We don't need an active ATG2 participant, just someone to monitor their progress. SW: Only need to register on the UN/ECE web site. ACTION: JB to look for a volunteer to monitor ATG2 activity. Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]