[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Incoterms (was: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 5|6May 2008)
[roberto@javest.com:] | The composite example (and maybe constraint) is just for the | printed form not the electronic document. Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea in the element definitions in 2.1 to make clear the connection between the element values in a document and the corresponding "composite" (I invented this term; does anyone know what it's usually called?). We have to make it clear, in other words, that the Incoterm abbreviation and location specified in the electronic document is understood to have the same legal force as the string made up of code + location + "Incoterms 2000" on the equivalent printed document. It's clear from the Incoterms documentation that this magic string has very big legal implications. | I sent a genericode draft to Ken with 3 columns: code, description | and group (this is just the 1st char of the code) We might as well include the French version of the Incoterm as well. It appears to be equally normative in the UNECE Recommendation. > This will make UBL even better ! Let's see whether anyone disagrees with my interpretation. We'll have a chance to discuss this again in next week's Pacific TC call. Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]