[ubl] Re: Thoughts on Ken's UBL Customization document -gkholman-ubl-modeling-0.4

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Hi again

I'm not sure whether the time is right to discuss this yet (perhaps
I'll miss the discussion) but one point seems a bit off-track as the
portion quoted below seems to touch on the area that troubles me
- mandatory in the schema means mandatory in an instance as
distinct somewhat from mandatory in a receiving system implementation.
The SBS seeks to distinguish these by trying to specify the latter while
leaving the former to the UBL modellers. One has to remember that
an instance is not supposed to leave an element empty so the elements
below are those which have to have data included in * every * instance 
with a UBL namespace.

All the best

Steve


Quoting Ken/Jay:

For example the absolute minimum invoice instance 
has only the following information items:

/in:Invoice/
/in:Invoice/cbc:ID
/in:Invoice/cbc:IssueDate
/in:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/
/in:Invoice/cac:AccountingCustomerParty/
/in:Invoice/cac:LegalTotal/
/in:Invoice/cac:LegalTotal/cbc:PayableAmount
/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/
/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cbc:ID
/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cbc:LineExtensionAmount
/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/

>If not how can serendipity apply? It's not clear 
>to me if the minimum requirements are stated or 
>not.  I assume that 'minimum requirements' are 
>support for the whole UBL model.

Personally, I think that 'minimum requirements' 
is support for only the mandatory elements.
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal