[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Payment Means cardinality in Order Response
If you are proposing changing the cardinality from 0..1 to 0..many then I would say this is backward compatible and could be a candidate for UBL 2.1. An instance of of UBL 2.0 OrderResponse wold still be valid under 2.1 with the extended cardinality. Have you added this to the issues list? > To view the issues list, the URL is: > > http://www.eccnet.com/UniversalBusinessList/IssuesList.xml > > To add a new issue the form is available at: > > http://www.eccnet.com/UniversalBusinessLanguage/AddIssue.html > > The login is 'ubl' and password is 'issues123'. stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote: > Greetings UBL TC > > As pointed out to me by Luca Reginato in Italy, we have an > inconsistency between the document types in that in most > of them PaymentMeans has minimum occurance 0 and maximum > occurance unbounded, which is great as PaymentDueDate can > be automated even when there are multiple payment due dates > by using multiple PaymentMeans occurances. So far so good. > However it is quite a general requirement to use the > OrderResponse document as a key document (usually calling it > 'order confirmation' or 'order acknowledgement') as with > what is called 'punch out' and similar common practises. > In such cases the OrderResponse is the primary document from > the seller (or seller's agent) and so it there is a strong > requirement to include here the payment information such > as a Payment Due Date or set of Payment Due Dates. The > inconsistency is that in UBL 2.0, although the need for such > payment requirement information is acknowledge by the > inclusion of PaymentMeans, it is only, in the OrderResponse > with the allowance of zero or one occurances (hence only a > single payment due date at most). > > I do accept that fixing this would be quite a challenge as > it may involve a backwards compatibility issue. Maybe there > is a way to fix it by creating a new ASBIE and ABIE which > has multiple occurances and appending it to the Order Response. > Otherwise it would seem implementers making primary use of > the OrderResponse in this way have to 1. create their own > extension which reduces the opportunities for interoperability > or 2. use a document such as Invoice in situations where this > is otherwise deemed as unnecessary (and therefore more expense > is imposed which doesn't necessarily bring a proportional > return on investment perhaps) or 3. do without the automation > of the payment due dates and just use a note or description. > I think 3. is unsatisfactory as it should be a major benefit > of using UBL that payments can be fully automated as part of > use of implementing electronic procurement with UBL. > > Best regards > > --Stephen Green > > Partner > SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk > Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 > > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice > > > > > > > > --No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: > 269.9.10/873 - Release Date: 26/06/2007 11:54 PM > > -- 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]