OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[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

       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

        - 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

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.



-----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

00H30 - 02H30 UTC TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005


   Jon Bosak (chair)
   Stephen Green
   G. Ken Holman
   Tim McGrath
   Andy Schoka
   Sylvia Webb


   Additions to the calendar:

      TM: Note the eEurope Award given the team from Denmark for
      their UBL implementation!


      GKH: Presentation to Canadian government people went very
      well; have been invited back to present to a different

   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

      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

      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

      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: 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.


   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

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]