MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?)AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2
Hello Michael,
I apologize for not catching your original mail, which came during our
break, so was lost in the large quantity of mail I had when I returned.
I will add this.
Thanks,
-Anne
dill2@gefeg.com wrote:
> Anne,
> sorry, next time I'll mention explicitely, if something is a comment
> for the issue list.
> Please do me the favor to add my comments to 18.2. At least the topic
> 2/ and 3/b refer directly and immediately to 18.2 I think, it is
> worth to be considered as a comment, if somebody disagree with the
> existing proposal as of the issue list and if this somebody wrote
> arguments.
>
> Dear All,
> please let me underline that Issue list line 113 with the Commend Id
> 'b.1' is a very basic issue for CCTS compliance and should be
> considered as an UBL 1.0 issue
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dill2@gefeg.com [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 19:14
> An: 'Tim McGrath'
> Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Betreff: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for
> Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2
>
> I think that this discussion has been addressing different points:
>
> 1/ Tim, you are obviously making a point about ASBIEs in general.
>
> 2/ In 18.2 Yukinori Saito is raising a Controlled Vocabulary issue
> and he proposes replacement of Customer by Seller. But shouldn't
> the replacement proposed be Buyer instead?
>
> 3/ I am talking about BBIEs and the UBL data model itself. There
> are two issues:
>
> a) CCTS compliance
>
> The DEN and definition should always match each other. In the
> cases of the two BBIEs that Yukinori Saito refers to, namely
> 'MaximumBackOrderQuantity and MinimumBackOrderQuantity in LineItem
> (ABIE)', the DENs and definitions do not match, as required by
> CCTS. Either i) the DEN is correct in which case the model is OK
> but the definition should not include any mention of customer (or
> seller or...) or ii) the definition is correct in which case the
> UBL data model DEN needs changing and as a consequence the UBL
> data model will need to be changed. A new ABIE is required which
> will enable specific BBIEs to be defined to include the concept of
> 'Customer (Seller?Buyer) approved' in their name as an extra
> qualification.
>
> b) The UBL business requirement
>
> I do not understand from a business perspective why a seller
> should ever approve a backorder quantity to be backordered. IMHO
> it is a customer (buyer) who may do this.
> But in any case I even tend to disagree that any party role is
> pertinent to this definition and therefore I favour case a) i)
> i.e. the removal of the concept of party from the definition, as a
> proposed solution to this issue.
>
> Michael
>
> BTW:
>> The EDIFIX view you attached is not showing the correct definitions.
> Please let me draw your attention to the reason of the EDIFIX view
> I sent: It shows the four places where the Line Item.Details is
> reused. And this is what the text of the email said. And
> the definition an user can see is correct. And there is just one
> definition and not many. (Where I was not correct is to use the
> term ABIE inestead of ASBIE.)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Juli 2004 03:56
> An: Michael Dill
> Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Betreff: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for
> Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2
>
> i think what you are talking about is the definitions of the
> ASBIE for Line Item. Details. That is, where Line Item.
> Details is re-used it has a different definitions.
>
> So the place to look for its different usages is at the ASBIE
> level. We dont need a qualifier as the context of the ABIE in
> which the ASBIE appears gives that.
>
> The qualification (if any) of any ABIE happens when it is
> re-used (ie when it is used in an ASBIE) so that is where the
> qualifers should be.
>
> So we have things like...
>
> ASBIE Order Line. Line Item. defined as "information directly
> relating to a line item of a transaction. It identifies the
> item but only includes details about the item that are
> pertinent to one occurrence on a line item, e.g. quantity etc."
>
> ASBIE Order Line. Seller Proposed_ Substitute Line Item.
> defined as "the item(s) that the seller proposes for the
> substitution - the original ordered quantity, pricing etc,
> which may be different from the substituted item. It is
> assumed that hazard and shipment details etc will be the same."
>
> ASBIE Order Line. Seller Substituted_ Line Item. defined
> as "item(s) replaced by the seller - the original ordered
> quantity, pricing etc which may be different from the
> substituted item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment
> details etc will be the same."
> and
> ASBIE Order Line. Buyer Proposed_ Substitute Line Item.
> defined as "alternative item(s) acceptable to the buyer -
> quantity, pricing etc which may be different from the
> preferred item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment details
> etc will be the same."
>
> Al these are re-uses of LineItem. Details. All have
> defintions that relate to their re-use. None require any
> qualification of the object class. The qualification is of
> the property term (in other words the target object class) of
> the ASBIE. The EDIFIX view you attached is not showing the
> correct definitions.
>
> Saito-san's question is not related to definitions - it is
> terminology. elsewhere we refer to seller party but in one
> place we use the term customer - clearly this was an oversight
> and re-inforces the need for a controlled vocabulary.
>
> Michael Dill wrote:
>
>>Hi Anne, hi TC,
>>please let me propose to add the following comment for this item 18,2 of
>>Yukinori Saito:
>>Yukinori Saito wants to change 'customer' to 'seller party'. Behind this we
>>do have a very basic conceptual question. The definitions in question of
>>e.g. Line Item. Maximum_ Backorder. Quantity is defined in reusable 'Line
>>Item. Details'.
>>Line Item. Details is directly reused in four other ABIEs (see attached
>>*.doc file). The very basic definition as of the Reusable Library cannot
>>express the specific needs of these four reusages.
>>
>>IF UBL agrees that definitions shall be meaningful, THEN a place is needed
>>where these meaningful definitions shall be written. The current structure
>>of the spreadsheets does not allow this, but CCTS does requires this, I
>>think.
>>
>>There are three or four ABIE needed, which base on 'Line Item. Details'.
>>These ABIE should restrict the underlying one and can have more specific
>>definitions due to the specifis usage.
>>
>>In such a case, they need an Object Class Term Qualifier.IMHO this is what
>>Mark also mentioned in one of his emails.
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Michael
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>
>--
>regards
>tim mcgrath
>phone: +618 93352228
>postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
>
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]