Hello UBL TC meeting in Stockholm, Here, as promised in today's plenary, is a list of miscellaneous PRD3 issues that I've collected from various discussions over the past several months. Some of these no doubt duplicate issues that you are already tracking. The NDR issues are really a list for the NDR Team; they are included here for tracking purposes, but you should feel free to discuss them if you have input for the NDR Team. Jon ======================================================================== PRD3 ISSUES RELATING TO CONTENT 1. Missing document-level signature ASBIE: UBL-CallForTenders-2.1 UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.1 UBL-CertificateOfOrigin-2.1 UBL-ContractAwardNotice-2.1 UBL-ContractNotice-2.1 UBL-PriorInformationNotice-2.1 2. Requirement from Spain for withholding tax on invoices. 3. Programmatic correction of the ASBIE definitions. 4. Addition of backordering functionality (probably by adding "backordered" to the code list for line status). 5. Start date for RFQs
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00000.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00001.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00002.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/201104/msg00003.html From TC minutes of 4/18: TM: The issue is whether we want to expand RFQ to look like RFP; the difference is in the formality of the process. An RFQ usually comes after an RFP and is more specific; an RFQ does not usually lead into tendering, whereas an RFP does -- but this is different in different countries. 6. New document types for CatalogueTemplate and PurchaseConditions. ======================================================================== PRD3 ISSUES RELATING TO DOCUMENTATION 1. Specific questions for Stockholm: a. In 2.15, the first paragraph doesn't mention air; is this intentional? b. Most of the process diagrams are lacking labels for source and destination; should they be supplied? (Note that in several cases this means distinguishing between two versions of a figure that would otherwise be identical; see sections 2.13.3.4 through 2.13.3.8.) c. In section 2.15.5, the name "Transport Progress Status" needs further discussion. d. The language in 2.16 needs to reflect a federated distribution of status (not just the Freight Forwarder). e. The entry for Transportation Status in 2.18 needs to reflect the federated distribution of status. f. The entry for Certificate of Origin in 2.18 needs to amplify the difference between the UBL COO document type and an actual COO. The current description does not explain this. g. The third paragraph in 2.19 mentions "qualifying party," but no such entry appears on the following table; also, there is no mention of the party whose role is Transportation Network Manager or Transport Regulator. 2. Possible reorganization of the hub document (from TM 5/23): Page 76 Table 1. - how hard would it be to link the document names to their schemas? we can then remove section 3.1. now we duplicate (and potential get out of synch.) Generally can we move the Context/Process descriptions to separate documents? This means readers get to the thing they most want to see (the document types and schema links) quicker. We could publish CPFR, VMI, Procurement, Intermodal Freight, etc as separate documents. [Recommend that we deal with these issues in Kars - JB] 3. NDR issues (from GKH 5/22): a. recorded NDR rule GTD2 states xsd:anyType MUST NOT be used, yet we use it for extensions; I thought we had covered this off earlier with text like "except for the extension mechanism, ...." as I see for GXS1 ... I don't know if this is a problem in NDR a problem transcribing the NDR to this document b. I see that NDR GXS1 has an unresolved link and out-of-context text c. I see all NDR DOCx rules, and GXS4, NMS4, NMS5 and possibly others not listed here, have out-of-context text d. NDR ELD13 and ELD14 makes references to UBLSubsetID (which hasn't existed in any of UBL 2) and the pair of rules are not consistent with the four BBIEs that must follow the extensions element (in order): UBLVersionID, UBLCustomizationID, UBLProfileID and UBLProfileExecutionID. e. NDR GXS11 - xsd:union no longer applicable, especially for code lists now that code lists are not part of normative UBL f. NDR GXS14 - we are, in fact, using xsd:processContents="lax" based on Ken Vaughn's valuable contribution g. NDR GXS13 is out of order, but I'm not sure it applies as descriptive rather than its prescriptive nature ... we don't extend complex types, and our complex types for BBIEs have simple contents that extend our UDT simple types ... I think we need to remove this h. NDR NMC1 sounds just wrong; based on my understanding of "fully qualified path", it is impossible for NMC1 to be enforced because of ABIE reuse through ASBIE referencing. j. NDR SSM18 seems nonsensical - it happens we have one (QDT) but it isn't that we "must" have one ... this probably original was "must not" which is no longer true [Recommend that we turn this list over to the NDR team - JB]