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] bringing UBL "billing" documents in sync

Hello UBLers,
please find some comments below.

Best regards

Il 06/09/2017 14:13, Duvekot, Kees ha scritto:



As part of the analysis of tickets UBL-44, UBL-60 and UBL-137 I have looked at all the billing documents in UBL and see where they are  “not in sync” with each other.


I have looked at the following billing documents:








I have done a comparison of the various UBL elements that are in these documents on “header level”.


This is the result:



This is only available in Invoice, and not in the other documents.

As part of bringing all billing documents in sync I would propose to add this the the 4 other billing documents (preferably at the same “position” as invoice)

I agree


cbc:InvoiceTypeCode / cbc:CreditNoteTypeCode 

In all documents except SelfBilledCreditNote there is a “TypeCode” element.

I would propose to add the cbc:CreditNoteTypeCode to the SelfBilledCreditNote to bring it in line with the normal CreditNote Document.

I think a self-billed invoice (or Credit Note) is already a specific type of invoice, there are no other parallel types associated.



This element is available in Invoice and CreditNote, but not in the SelfBilled equivalents.

I would propose to add this to both SelfBilledInvoice and SelfBilledCreditNote

I would NOT include It in the FreightInvoice to avoid confusion about “Buyer” in the FreightInvoice context.

I agree



This element is available in both the CreditNote and SelfBilledCreditNote, not in the other documents

I would propose to leave this .. because this is a specific element that is only relevant in the CreditNote context as far as I can tell.


I agree


This element is only available in the FreightInvoice, and is the only real element that is different with a “normal” invoice.

I would NOT add this to the other documents to keep the separate status of FreightInvoice.

I agree



This element is missing from the FreightInvoice.

As far as I can tell the statements can not be used for “Freight” purpuses .. so not having this on the FreightInvoice makes sense


A Statement can be exchanged for listing pending debts. it is not specific to freight but it is a commercial practice, so its reference could be useful in any kind of invoice.


This element is only available in the Invoice, not in the other 4 billing documents.

I would propose to add this element also to all the other billing documents.

Makes sense


cac:BuyerCustomerParty / cac:SellerSupplierParty 

These two element are not available in the FreightInvoice

It makes sense that they are NOT in the freightInvoice, but what would be the equivalants for Freight? Based on TransportExecutionPlan(Request)Type I would think TransportUserParty / TransportServiceProviderParty but I would leave that discussion for 2.3


Main parties in a freight invoice are the Shipper (or freigth forwarder) and the Carrier.
The Carrier is playing the role of Seller and the Shipper is playing the role of the Buyer. 
Further freight-specific parties are available under the Shipment information aggregate.

cac:Delivery / cac:DeliveryTerms 

These elements are not available in the FreighInvoice

I would NOT add them to FreightInvoice, as that they are really “Ordering” related

The Shipment is a superset of the Delivery information, infact it contains a cac:Delivery too.
I agree the Freight invoice do not need this.



This element is not available in the CreditNote and SelfBilledCreditNote

But it makes sense that it is NOT there, because prepaying your credit … that does not make sense at all J

I agree



This element is only available in the Invoice not in the other documents

I would propose that we also add this to all the other elements to bring the WithHoldingTax handling on all documents in line with each other.


I agree.
It makes sense to mention that the PayableAmount should take into account the withholding tax when used (subtracted).
I know it is not nice to bind such rules into UBL but it could be nice to mention that the PayableAmount may be reduced by the WithholdingTaxTotal.


Please lets discuss this in today call.


Kees D.












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