UBL Pre-Award Procurement Subcommittee

In preparation for tomorrow's teleconference, I have these observations: At 2016-12-13 11:19 +0000, Ole Ellerbæk Madsen wrote: 1. In the Response you use QuantityType and NumericType. However I can?t find any XML instance sample where Numeric is used and the documentation is quite ambiguous. I must admit that I don?t quite understand the difference between both. There are no CCTS supplementary components for an item of type Numeric: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#UDT-Numeric.Type There are a number of supplementary components for an item of type Quantity: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#UDT-Quantity.Type Even though the unitCode of Quantity is optional, if all you want is a number then you should use Numeric so that someone doesn't add a unitCode expecting it to mean something when it shouldn't. 2. In ?cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement? you have ?cbc:MaximumQuantity, cbc:MinimumQuantity, and cbc:MaximimQuantity? elements. We also have now an identical requirement but not only for Quantities but also for Amounts and percentages. My question is: if you needed to specify an amount or a percentage in the TenderingCriterionRequirement would you use always the QuantityType and use the unitCode attribute to specify whether the Quantity is Euros or Percentage? This doesn?t seem very canonical, does it? There is a ticket that has been deferred: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-33 ... but the reason it was deferred is categorized as not being backward compatible. What I don't understand is that I don't see cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement in UBL 2.1, so I don't know why this would be considered not backward compatible. It looks like it is new in UBL 2.2 and so it can be changed immediately if needed. If it were a backward compatibility issue, one could impose a business rule on the quantity to state that, from a business perspective, the unitCode must be omitted, thus making it equivalent to numeric. But it won't be enforceable in the schema. And this morning I don't think it applies here. 3. cac:SubsiduaryTenderingCriteriaGroup Should be cac:SubsidiaryTenderingCriteriaGroup I have just repaired the online spreadsheet for the CSD01 generation. Thanks! I will try to figure out a way of doing spell checking on the model later today. . . . . . . Ken -- Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training @US$45: http://goo.gl/Dd9qBK Crane Softwrights Ltd. _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G Ken Holman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ blog _ _ _ _ _ http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/posts Legal business disclaimers: _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

At 2016-12-13 11:40 -0500, G. Ken Holman wrote: In preparation for tomorrow's teleconference, I have these observations: At 2016-12-13 11:19 +0000, Ole Ellerbæk Madsen wrote: ... 2. In ?cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement? you have ?cbc:MaximumQuantity, cbc:MinimumQuantity, and cbc:MaximimQuantity? elements. We also have now an identical requirement but not only for Quantities but also for Amounts and percentages. My question is: if you needed to specify an amount or a percentage in the TenderingCriterionRequirement would you use always the QuantityType and use the unitCode attribute to specify whether the Quantity is Euros or Percentage? This doesn?t seem very canonical, does it? There is a ticket that has been deferred: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-33 ... but the reason it was deferred is categorized as not being backward compatible. What I don't understand is that I don't see cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement in UBL 2.1, so I don't know why this would be considered not backward compatible. It looks like it is new in UBL 2.2 and so it can be changed immediately if needed. If it were a backward compatibility issue, one could impose a business rule on the quantity to state that, from a business perspective, the unitCode must be omitted, thus making it equivalent to numeric. But it won't be enforceable in the schema. And this morning I don't think it applies here. My mistake ... ticket 33 has to do with the values found in cac:TenderResult and so cannot be changed for backward compatibility reasons (which is exactly why it was handled as such). So, for TenderingCriterionRequirement, this is new in UBL 2.2 and so the change can be made immediately in time for CSD01 if desired. If you don't want the confusion of someone unexpectedly adding a unit of measure, and you don't want to impose a business rule of there being no unit of measure, then I believe the value should be Numeric and not Quantity. . . . . . . Ken -- Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training @US$45: http://goo.gl/Dd9qBK Crane Softwrights Ltd. _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G Ken Holman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ blog _ _ _ _ _ http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/posts Legal business disclaimers: _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

Hi I would support changing to Numeric these values, and adding an explicit ThresholdUnitCode, optional, to specify the unitCode when required. Regards Oriol > El 13 des 2016, a les 20:49, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> va escriure: > > At 2016-12-13 11:40 -0500, G. Ken Holman wrote: >> In preparation for tomorrow's teleconference, I have these observations: >> >> At 2016-12-13 11:19 +0000, Ole Ellerbæk Madsen wrote: >> ... >>> 2. In ?cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement? you have ?cbc:MaximumQuantity, cbc:MinimumQuantity, and cbc:MaximimQuantity? elements. We also have now an identical requirement but not only for Quantities but also for Amounts and percentages. My question is: if you needed to specify an amount or a percentage in the TenderingCriterionRequirement would you use always the QuantityType and use the unitCode attribute to specify whether the Quantity is Euros or Percentage? This doesn?t seem very canonical, does it? >> >> There is a ticket that has been deferred: >> >> https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-33 >> >> ... but the reason it was deferred is categorized as not being backward compatible. What I don't understand is that I don't see cac:TenderingCriterionRequirement in UBL 2.1, so I don't know why this would be considered not backward compatible. It looks like it is new in UBL 2.2 and so it can be changed immediately if needed. >> >> If it were a backward compatibility issue, one could impose a business rule on the quantity to state that, from a business perspective, the unitCode must be omitted, thus making it equivalent to numeric. But it won't be enforceable in the schema. And this morning I don't think it applies here. > > My mistake ... ticket 33 has to do with the values found in cac:TenderResult and so cannot be changed for backward compatibility reasons (which is exactly why it was handled as such). > > So, for TenderingCriterionRequirement, this is new in UBL 2.2 and so the change can be made immediately in time for CSD01 if desired. If you don't want the confusion of someone unexpectedly adding a unit of measure, and you don't want to impose a business rule of there being no unit of measure, then I believe the value should be Numeric and not Quantity. > > . . . . . . Ken > > > -- > Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources > Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training @US$45: http://goo.gl/Dd9qBK > Crane Softwrights Ltd. _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ > G Ken Holman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com > Google+ blog _ _ _ _ _ http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/posts > Legal business disclaimers: _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >