[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: SV: [ubl] Payment Means cardinality in Order Response
|As far as I can see, there is only one UBL 2.0 document that has unbounded Payment Means and that is the Invoice itself; the other five documents that have Payment Means (Quotation, Order, Order Change, Order Response and Self Billed Invoice) all have 0..1 Payment Means. Note: Payment Means is also in AllowanceCharge (0..n), Statement (0..1), StatementLine (0..1), Remittance Advice (0..1), Reminder (0..n), but not relevant to this conversation.|
As far as I can remember, the unbounded Payment Means in Invoice was a Swedish requirement for situations where an Invoice could be settled via a bank or via the Giro system; it wasn't to facilitate multiple due dates. I do have to say, however (and the NES customisation has proved this), having the due date only available in Payment Means is a real pain ! In NES we have to use a Payment Means Code "1" just to get access to the due date for the Invoice where the due date is not Payment Means specific.
"Traditionally" we have thought of the Quotation document as the carrier for punch-out (or round-trip) information; punch-out basically means that the information is brought back from a remote location (Supplier site) to populate a Requisition in the Customer domain from which an Order will be derived (following the appropriate internal approval processes). I think Stephen is referring to a simple straightforward web Order which is a different thing. Whether multiple due dates are required in this scenario is debatable as is the validity of the Order Response adopting the role of the Order, but what remains is the fact that Invoice is the only document in question that facilitates unbounded payment due dates rather than that's being the norm.
I don't know if that answers the question ... or if there was, in fact, a question.
On 28 Jun 2007, at 09:40, Peter Borresen wrote: