Re: Re: [ubl] Re: More typos in the IDD spreadsheets and UBL 2.0spreadsheetmodels

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

sorry i should have been clearer.

> | > (6) - UBL 2.0 Common Library cells B253 and B254 have a DEN starting 
> | > with "Credit Note" when the DEN should be "Credit Note Line"
> | >   
> | Agreed
>
> Meaning that the DEN should *begin with* Credit Note Line?
>
>   
yes
> | > (7) - UBL 2.0 Common Library cells B280 and B281 have a DEN starting 
> | > with "Debit Note" when the DEN should be "Debit Note Line"
> | >
> | >   
> | Agreed
>
> Meaning that the DEN should *begin with* Debit Note Line?
>
>   
yes
> | > (14) - UBL 2.0 Common Library cell G815 reads "Accounting Cost" and 
> | > should read "Text" because the representation term is "Text", which 
> | > then changes F815 from empty to "Accounting Cost"
> | >   
> | This is correct as it stands, or least it is the way we intended
> | it to be.
>
> Meaning that these spreadsheet cells are correct the way they were
> issued in 2.0?
>
>   
yes
> | > (20) - in the following spreadsheets, cells H4 and H5 are wrong 
> | > because they are the fixed string "Identifier" rather than the 
> | > formula found in H3 which produces the correct value ... copying the 
> | > formula from H3 to H4 and H5 repairs these cells (turns out to be 
> | > every one *except* UBL-TransportationStatus-2.0.ods which is already 
> | > correct in UBL 2.0):
> | >
> | >    UBL-ApplicationResponse-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-AttachedDocument-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-BillOfLading-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Catalogue-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CatalogueDeletion-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CatalogueItemSpecificationUpdate-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CataloguePricingUpdate-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CertificateOfOrigin-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-CreditNote-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-DebitNote-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-DespatchAdvice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-ForwardingInstructions-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-FreightInvoice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Invoice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Order-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-OrderCancellation-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-OrderChange-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-OrderResponse-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-OrderResponseSimple-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-PackingList-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Quotation-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-ReceiptAdvice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Reminder-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-RemittanceAdvice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-RequestForQuotation-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-SelfBilledCreditNote-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-SelfBilledInvoice-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Statement-2.0.ods
> | >    UBL-Waybill-2.0.ods
> | >
> | >   
> | Agreed
>
> So the fix here is to copy the formula itself?  (Sounds fragile
> across the xls/odf boundary.)  Can this instruction be put in the
> form of a literal?
>
>   
it is OK to copy the formula.  we do this throughout and have no 
problems with xls/odf (that is why we use formula and not macros).

> | > (25) in UBL-Reminder-2.0.ods cell F12 has "Reminder" and should be 
> | > "Reminder Sequence", cell G12 has "Sequence" and should be "Numeric", 
> | > and cell H12 has the hardwired string "Reminder Sequence" when it 
> | > should be the formula in every other row of column 12 ... this then 
> | > changes the DEN in B12 from "Reminder. Reminder Sequence. Numeric" to 
> | > "Reminder. Reminder Sequence Numeric. Numeric"
> | >
> | >   
> | The values are correct as they stand (although I agree the formula 
> | should be used not the hardwired text).
>
> See previous question about use of formulas.
>
>   
its OK to us them
> | > (28) - in the IDD template and UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-ES.xls and 
> | > UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-IT.xls -
> | >
> | >   B40: Allowance Charge. Allowance Charge_ Reason. Text
> | >   B119: Catalogue Pricing Update Line. Contractor_ Customer Party. 
> | > Customer Party
> | >   B120: Catalogue Pricing Update Line. Seller_ Supplier Party. Supplier Party
> | >   B121: Catalogue Pricing Update Line. Required_ Item Location 
> | > Quantity. Item Location Quantity
> | >   B254: Credit Note Line. Discrepancy_ Response. Response
> | >   B255: Credit Note Line. Despatch_ Line Reference. Line Reference
> | >   B256: Credit Note Line. Receipt_ Line Reference. Line Reference
> | >   B281: Debit Note Line. Discrepancy_ Response. Response
> | >   B282: Debit Note Line. Despatch_ Line Reference. Line Reference
> | >   B283: Debit Note Line. Receipt_ Line Reference. Line Reference
> | >   B425: Goods Item. Quantity
> | >   B457: Hazardous Item. Medical First Aid Guide Code. Code
> | >   B655: Order Reference. Customer_ Reference. Text
> | >   B798: Receipt Line. Timing Complaint Code. Code
> | >   B897: Shipment Stage. Loading Port_ Location. Location
> | >   B898: Shipment Stage. Unloading Port_ Location. Location
> | >   B899: Shipment Stage. Transship Port_ Location. Location
> | >   B941: Status. Percent
> | >   B1029: Transport Event. Transport Event Type Code. Code
> | >
> | >   
> | I assume these are just the previously identified changes to the
> | package spreadsheets being propogated to the IDD.
>
> Is this right?
>
>   
i think so.  unless ken has found difference in the current IDD, then 
all DENs from the 2.0 package spreadsheets must be replicated in the 
IDD.  Ken needs to confirm that this list is just a reminder to update 
the IDD.
> Jon

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