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-psc] Re: [ubl] Proposed Changelog and Action Items for PRD2to PRD3


maybe this is just semantics. 

the new Legal_MonetaryTotal in the Invoice is the legal total up to the point where circumstances dictate a change (as you say, additional allowance and charges).  what we are saying is that if you have an Invoice there will be a MonetaryTotal and without any other evidence it should be considered the Legal_ MonetaryTotal.

so is it the term "legal" that concerns you or the fact it is mandatory?

if the former, then what is a better term?

if the latter, then could we ever have an invoice with no amount totals?

Stephen Green wrote:
Just to point out that there is still a significant outstanding aspect to
 ISS-11 which is the last bit
" Indeed,I question whether even Invoice should have PayableAmount as mandatory since sometimes the PayableAmount isn't known until the invoice is being paid (there could be allowances and charges which are not known until then due to some being conditional on payment date, etc)."

This doesn't seem to me to be resolved in the disposition and could
cause problems for a very large group of invoicers whose invoice
payable totals are not known at the time of invoicing. This happens when,
for instance, the allowance/charge is unknown at the time of invoicing
(as is allowed for in the UBL 2 allowance/charge which caters for dependencies
of the amount on certain conditions such as payment within a certain time.
This is *very* common in invoicing.

In UK, tax rules, for instance, allow for this by ruling that certain
situations of such charges do not affect the TaxTotal. But they
do of course not prevent the need for a non-fixed PayableTotal. 

I would see this as very difficult to fix in a minor release so it seems
very pressing for UBL 2. I can't really ignore it as it impacts so much
on allowance for proper invoice usage with UBL 2 and UBL 2's invoice
being fit-for-purpose'

Much obliged

Steve

  
Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 24/08/06 07:28:51 >>>
        
The attached spreadsheet describes the issues from PRD2 and their 
resolution for PRD3 together with a separate sheet indicating the 
actions and persons responsible.

Can those who have action items work on these over the next few days and 
give a progress report at the TC meetings next week.

It would also be useful to have others check we have covered everything 
required from the PRD2 review.

  

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath


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