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] Definitions of the Name element

my comments below,

> For background, see
>    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200711/msg00025.html
> Summary: The JPLSC raised questions regarding the definition of
> "Name" in the Catalogue document.  The current definition of
> Catalogue. Name is:
> -   A name given to a catalogue.
> Tim explained this as follows:
>    Catalogue may be referred to by a name such as "winter 2005
>    collection".  This may be the way business users identify the
>    Catalogue (rather than the ID).  Maybe we could improve the
>    definition of "Name" to say "text [that] identifes the
>    Catalogue to business users".

It is exactly the name printed on a paper based catalogue.

About Collections UBL ITLSC has submitted a request as it seems
Collections are effectively groups of Items inside a Catalogue.
The textile, fashion, and ceramic sectors are basing their catalogues on
We could say the actual Catalogue is a base Collection, but it will be not
sufficient for many industrial sectors.
A Catalogue is made by many Collections.

We are in late providing full samples for this, hope to do it asap.

> To which Saito-san responded:
>    YS: I propose the improving definituin of "Name" according to
>    your comments.  The definition of "Name" could improve to say
>    "A name given to a catalogue.  The name is a text [that]
>    identifies the Catalogue to business users. "
> With due respect to Saito-san and the other members of the JPLSC,
> I must observe that the revised definition adds nothing to the
> original one, because the name of something is *always* text that
> identifies that thing to its users.  I would suggest that the
> perceived clarification here came from Tim's example rather than
> from the revised definition.
> As in the case of the Description element, a look across the
> collection reveals a lot of apparently meaningless variation in
> the definition of Name.  Here are the 10 UBL 2.0 documents that
> contain a Name element together with the definition of that
> element as currently given in each (the definitions have been
> extracted from the xsd files to save time):
>    BillOfLading: The business name given to the document type.
Here the reason a Bill of Lading can effectively act differently (legally)
and called for example "Sea WayBill".

>    Catalogue: A name given to a catalogue.
>    CatalogueDeletion: A name given to a Catalogue Deletion.
>    CatalogueItemSpecificationUpdate: A name given to the Catalogue
>       Revision.
>    CataloguePricingUpdate: A name given to the Catalogue Revision.
>    CatalogueRequest: A name given to the Catalogue Request.
>    ForwardingInstructions: Name of a Forwarding Instructions.
>    PackingList: Name of a Packing List.
Not common but possible

>    TransportationStatus: Name of a status message.
>    Waybill: Name of a Waybill.
Same for Bill Of Lading.

> I see two problems with this situation.
> 1. The definitions vary without reason.  For purposes of the
>    Update Package, I suggest the following:
> -   The name given to a particular instance of the document type.
>    As I noted in connection with the Description element in
>    another post, the CatalogueItemSpecificationUpdate and
>    CataloguePricingUpdate may be special cases; but I'm having
>    trouble imagining a text occupying the Name field in these
>    documents that isn't covered by the suggested uniform
>    definition for the others.  If the Name given to these
>    documents is really a place to put text that labels a (reason
>    for?) a change, I have to wonder whether that information
>    wouldn't better be given in a Note, but in any event, if a
>    uniform definition like the one suggested is not appropriate
>    for CatalogueItemSpecificationUpdate and
>    CataloguePricingUpdate, then the genuinely different function
>    of Names in these two cases should be described better than in
>    their current definitions.
> 2. It's not clear to me why some documents have a Name element and
>    some don't.  From Tim's example, it's apparent that Catalogue
>    is a special case; we often refer to something like "Winter
>    2008 Collection" because a catalogue instance is felt to have a
>    shared persistent identity, but that's not what we're doing in
>    giving an ad hoc name like "Packing list for that stuff that
>    Remix Corp. backordered" to a Packing List.  I can see a good
>    reason for giving all the document types listed an optional
>    Name; what I'm not understanding is why that same reason
>    wouldn't apply to the other UBL 2.0 document types.  Why don't
>    they all have Name elements?  Why would a Packing List have a
>    Name and not an Invoice?

The Invoice is identified by a Number (ID) and a date, Vendor data,
referenced Orders, and finally the content.
There is not name for an invoice, noone will be interested to a "name",
people just check the invoice is acceptable by checking the above data.

>    If, as I suspect, this is just an oversight, then the addition
>    of an optional Name element to the document types that
>    currently lack one should be logged on the issues list for
>    2.1.  If this is not an oversight, then we should clarify the
>    reason that some doctypes can have a Name and others can't.
> Jon
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Hope this helps


Roberto Cisternino

UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee:
UBL Italia:
UBL Writer @ JAVEST:

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