I have been asked to respond to a few of the comments the JPLSC have raised about UBL 2.0. Please see my responses below.
Item 6. Note (BBIE) and Description (BBIE) in Catalogue documents
"What is deference between Note and Description. We cannot understand the deference by reading the definition."
The two terms are not the same.
A Description is some text that further describes what the catalogue is. By looking at the description you should be able to understand what type of things would be in the Catalogue. The example given in the 2.0 spreadsheets is "computer accessories for laptops".
A Note is information that is not contained explicitly in another structure. Such as how the Catalogue is to be used, eg. as part of a promotion, a limited offer, a tender or as part of a contract. A Note would not explain what is in the Catalogue (because that is contained explicitly in another structure). So you can think of a Note as anything additional that isn't a description.
Maybe we could improve the definition of "Description" to say "text that further further describes what the catalogue is".
Item 7. Name (BBIE) in Catalogue documents
"We cannot understand the meaning and usage of Name (BBIE) by reading the definition. UBL TC had better add some suitable descriptions."
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 identifes the Catalogue to business users".
Item 11. RejectionNote (BBIE) in OrderResponseSimple
"We think that RejectionNote (BBIE) had better be RejectionDescription (BBIE)."
I suspect neither are the best term, maybe RejectReason would have been better. This is probably worth reviewing for a future major release but it cannot be done as part of the current update package or UBL 2.1 release because a change in UBL names would affect the compatibility of documents.
I hope this is useful, let me know if you need further explanation.
Yukinori Saito wrote:
> Dear Jon Bosak,
> As I have post the Japanese translation results of UBL 2.0 to UBL mailing
> list on September 22, 2007, JPLSC have had some questions and comments
> during Japanese translation working. The attached document is the JPLSC's
> comments to UBL 2.0. I think that JPLSC's comments include some update items
> regarding UBL 2.0.
> Would you please review the JPLSC's comments?
> Best Regards,
> Yukinori Saito
> -------------------------------------------
> Yukinori Saito
> Fuji Electric Information Service Co., Ltd. (FIS)
> e-mail: saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp
> Tel: +81-3-5435-7333 Fax: +81-3-5435-7513
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
Original Message -----
> From: