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] Data type qualification code lists for UBL 2.1

At 2012-05-05 16:16 +0000, Duvekot, Kees wrote:
while going through this list I noticed that there was no mention of a code list for TaxCategory.

Correct. PSC decided to qualify as part of the UBL distribution only a few of the "obvious" items expected to be common across all implementations. All others are left to a community of users to agree upon. The data type qualifications distributed are both examples of use and likely useful to users who have not created their own customizations with their own decisions on data type qualifications.

It is meant to be as short a list as possible. No doubt other items could be qualified in our distribution, but I think the prevailing attitude has been not to grow the list. In fact in UBL 2.1 we removed one of the data type qualifications we had agreed upon in UBL 2.0.

These qualifications have no impact on the schemas. They are not normative. The committee includes values in the distribution so that UBL could be used off-the-shelf, though we fully anticipate user communities to be creating their own customizations or using an existing customization. The customization would include a complete list of expected qualifications for that community.

When I looked at the UBL specifications I noticed that there is no element called "TaxCategoryCode" but only and ID element inside the TaxCategoryType.

Right. And I would have thought that is the identifier of the instance of the tax category, not the type of the tax category. I see that the Name element is available to use. But I am a geek and not a tax expert.

When looking at the CEN/BII Tax guidlines the say the following:
paragraph 2.3: Tax category ID should be based on UN/ECE code list 5305.

The ID or the type? I would have thought type, not ID. Do you have a citation for this guideline for the benefit of readers of the archive?

So should there not have been a TaxCategoryCode element inside the TaxCategoryType, or am I mistaken?

I'm not the one to ask.

Now we have an ID field that should be populated based on a code list ...

And a user community would dictate that. So a CEN/BII customization of UBL would dictate the code lists to use in the contexts needed. And those code lists might be subsets or supersets of other code lists.

And maybe the same for TaxSchemeType? There we might have a need for a TaxSchemeCode that can be linked to UN/ECE code list 5153

I was drawn to that element in trying to answer the first part of this message:


... and you see there is a mandatory tax scheme child element:


... and I thought the TaxTypeCode child of that would indicate the type of the tax.

I would have thought incorrectly that the category's type would be indicated by the category's scheme's type:


..but your citation of two different code lists 5305 and 5153 would imply the concepts are sufficiently different that I have that wrong:

5305 Duty or tax or fee category code

5153 Duty or tax or fee type name code

So my gut feel is that while we do have the tax category name, you are right that the <cac:TaxCategory> element would be improved by also having a <cbc:TaxCategoryCode> child in addition to the <cbc:Name> child.

But, even if we do add that element, I doubt we will be changing the list of data type qualifications included in the distribution's second-pass XSLT.

Note that we have a number of special purpose code lists provided in the distribution for the convenience of users, but these are not included in any data type qualifications in the distributed second-pass XSLT value-validation stylesheet:


I can easily put 5305 and 5153 into the distribution in that directory if you advise it would be helpful to our user community. The TSC will be adding a number of code lists to this directory in the near future in time for the final 2.1 distribution. None of them will be included as distributed data type qualifications.

Please review this with PSC and advise me of any conclusions you come to in this regard.

Thanks, Kees!

. . . . . . . . . . Ken

Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL and code list classes in Europe -- Oct 2012
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm
Crane Softwrights Ltd.            http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
G. Ken Holman                   mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about
Legal business disclaimers:    http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

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