UBL Transportation SC

Expand all | Collapse all

eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

  • 1.  eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-19-2010 10:18
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Dear all

    The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html

    Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23rd of March 15.00 CET at

    STANDING CON CALL NUMBER

        Skype: +9900827043982678

        US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075

        International: 201-793-9022

        "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #

           (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)

    Agenda:

    1)      Review of the schemas

    2)      Any other business

    I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:

    Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.

    Oriol:                                               Review Tendering schemas

    Sven:                                               Review Catalogue schemas

    Martin:                                           Review Ordering schemas

    Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.

    Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas

    Joao:                                               Review ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest

    Roberto:                                        Review RemittanceAdvice, Statement

    Ole:                                                  Review Utillity Statement

    Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report, Product Activity

    Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast, ForeCastRequest,

    ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)

    PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW

    I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT TIME LIMIT



  • 2.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rdof March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 14:15
    
    
      
    
    
    Hi all,

    about shemas I reviewed, all should be right; the only exceptions are some typing errors in description in Stock Availability Report and SalesItem ABIE. If you agree, I am going to correct them by eDoCreator.

    An observation about the CommonAggregateComponent schema: the element declarations are in alphabetic order; the type definitions are not ordered ... is it good?

    Tomorrow and Wednesday I will be out of office, so I will not able to join conf call.

    Best regards,

    Arianna


    Il 19/03/2010 11:17, Peter L. Borresen ha scritto:

    Dear all

    The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html

    Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23rd of March 15.00 CET at

    STANDING CON CALL NUMBER

        Skype: +9900827043982678

        US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075

        International: 201-793-9022

        "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #

           (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)

    Agenda:

    1)      Review of the schemas

    2)      Any other business

    I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:

    Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.

    Oriol:                                               Review Tendering schemas

    Sven:                                               Review Catalogue schemas

    Martin:                                           Review Ordering schemas

    Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.

    Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas

    Joao:                                               Review ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest

    Roberto:                                        Review RemittanceAdvice, Statement

    Ole:                                                  Review Utillity Statement

    Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report, Product Activity

    Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast, ForeCastRequest,

    ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)

    PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW

    I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT TIME LIMIT

    No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10 20:33:00



  • 3.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 16:16
    At 2010-03-22 15:14 +0100, Arianna Brutti wrote:
    >An observation about the CommonAggregateComponent schema: the 
    >element declarations are in alphabetic order; the type definitions 
    >are not ordered ... is it good?
    
    Well spotted.  I will bring this to the attention of eDoCreator.
    
    . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
    
    --
    XSLT/XQuery training:         San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
    Principles of XSLT for XQuery Writers: San Francisco,CA 2010-05-03
    XSLT/XQuery training:                 Ottawa, Canada 2010-05-10/14
    XSLT/XQuery/UBL/Code List training: Trondheim,Norway 2010-06-02/11
    Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
    Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
    G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
    Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
    Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
    
    


  • 4.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 17:00
    Hello,
    
    I just found a bug here:
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    1) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
    "CommisionMonetaryTotal"
    
    should be
    
    "CommissionMonetaryTotal"
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    2) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
    All flags (indicators) seems to be wrong in the naming (also very long).
    Maybe I am wrong, but this seems a wrong generation rule.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    3)
    
     Payable Alternative Amount
        The definition is not clear to me.
        This information has been added while working on the invoice where we
    have on the root a cac:PaymentAlternativeExchangeRate
    
    Into this document (also other) we do not have rates like:
    
    cac:PaymentExchangeRate
    cac:PaymentAlternativeExchangeRate
    
    All MonetaryTotal aggregates like CommissionMonetaryTotal should be
    supported by exchange rate information in the document root.
    
    NOTE: To be verified by Andrew Shoka if exchange rates are necessary
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    4) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
       cac:PalletSpaceMeasurementDimension
       This aggregate seems to me too much specific for UBL.  I mean pallets
    are just one of many transport handling units.
    Do we need a more generic measurement indication like:
    
    TransportHandlingUnitMeasurementDimension  ?
    
    or
    
    TransportEquipmentMeasurementDimension  ?
    
    IMPORTANT NOTE:
    a pallet could be either a "handling unit" and a "transport equipment"
    
    See the definition available in the SAP Library
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Transport Equipment:
    http://fmis.minfin.bg/help/EN/33/c7ec06b3fde0449d9ff38cd7c675be/content.htm
    
    Transport Handling Unit:
    http://fmis.minfin.bg/help/EN/c8/a44b779f3211d2858d0000e81ddea0/frameset.htm
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    5) Code lists
    
        I think we should align some code lists available at UN/ECE
    
    Latest UN/ECE codelists are here:
    http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml_schemas/index.htm#2009A
    
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    Roberto
    
    > Hi all,
    >
    > about shemas I reviewed, all should be right; the only exceptions are
    > some typing errors in description in Stock Availability Report and
    > SalesItem ABIE. If you agree, I am going to correct them by eDoCreator.
    >
    > An observation about the CommonAggregateComponent schema: the element
    > declarations are in alphabetic order; the type definitions are not
    > ordered ... is it good?
    >
    > Tomorrow and Wednesday I will be out of office, so I will not able to
    > join conf call.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Arianna
    >
    >
    > Il 19/03/2010 11:17, Peter L. Borresen ha scritto:
    >>
    >> Dear all
    >>
    >> The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are
    >> 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html
    >>
    >> Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23^rd
    >> of March 15.00 CET at
    >>
    >> STANDING CON CALL NUMBER
    >>
    >>     Skype: +9900827043982678
    >>
    >>     US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075
    >>
    >>     International: 201-793-9022
    >>
    >>     "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #
    >>
    >>        (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)
    >>
    >> Agenda:
    >>
    >> 1) Review of the schemas
    >>
    >> 2) Any other business
    >>
    >> I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:
    >>
    >> Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.
    >>
    >> Oriol:                                               Review Tendering
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Sven:                                               Review Catalogue
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Martin:                                           Review Ordering
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.
    >>
    >> Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas
    >>
    >> Joao:                                               Review
    >> ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest
    >>
    >> Roberto:                                        Review
    >> RemittanceAdvice, Statement
    >>
    >> Ole:                                                  Review Utillity
    >> Statement
    >>
    >> Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas
    >> (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report,
    >> Product Activity
    >>
    >> Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF
    >>  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast,
    >> ForeCastRequest,
    >>
    >> ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)
    >>
    >> PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE
    >> COMPLETED THE REVIEW
    >>
    >> I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23^RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT
    >> TIME LIMIT
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    >> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10
    >> 20:33:00
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    * JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
    *
    * Document Engineering Services Ltd. - Alliance Member
    * UBL Italian Localization SubCommittee (ITLSC), co-Chair
    * UBL Online Community editorial board member (ubl.xml.org)
    * Italian UBL Advisor
    
      Roberto Cisternino
    
      mobile: +39 328 2148123
      skype:  roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc
    
    [UBL Technical Committee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
    
    [UBL Online Community]
        http://ubl.xml.org
    
    [UBL International Conferences]
        http://www.ublconference.org
    
    [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
    
    [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]
        http://www.ubl-italia.org
    
    
    


  • 5.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 17:00
    Hello,
    
    I just found a bug here:
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    1) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
    "CommisionMonetaryTotal"
    
    should be
    
    "CommissionMonetaryTotal"
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    2) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
    All flags (indicators) seems to be wrong in the naming (also very long).
    Maybe I am wrong, but this seems a wrong generation rule.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    3)
    
     Payable Alternative Amount
        The definition is not clear to me.
        This information has been added while working on the invoice where we
    have on the root a cac:PaymentAlternativeExchangeRate
    
    Into this document (also other) we do not have rates like:
    
    cac:PaymentExchangeRate
    cac:PaymentAlternativeExchangeRate
    
    All MonetaryTotal aggregates like CommissionMonetaryTotal should be
    supported by exchange rate information in the document root.
    
    NOTE: To be verified by Andrew Shoka if exchange rates are necessary
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    4) UBL-TransportExecutionPlan-2.1
    
       cac:PalletSpaceMeasurementDimension
       This aggregate seems to me too much specific for UBL.  I mean pallets
    are just one of many transport handling units.
    Do we need a more generic measurement indication like:
    
    TransportHandlingUnitMeasurementDimension  ?
    
    or
    
    TransportEquipmentMeasurementDimension  ?
    
    IMPORTANT NOTE:
    a pallet could be either a "handling unit" and a "transport equipment"
    
    See the definition available in the SAP Library
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Transport Equipment:
    http://fmis.minfin.bg/help/EN/33/c7ec06b3fde0449d9ff38cd7c675be/content.htm
    
    Transport Handling Unit:
    http://fmis.minfin.bg/help/EN/c8/a44b779f3211d2858d0000e81ddea0/frameset.htm
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    5) Code lists
    
        I think we should align some code lists available at UN/ECE
    
    Latest UN/ECE codelists are here:
    http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml_schemas/index.htm#2009A
    
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    Roberto
    
    > Hi all,
    >
    > about shemas I reviewed, all should be right; the only exceptions are
    > some typing errors in description in Stock Availability Report and
    > SalesItem ABIE. If you agree, I am going to correct them by eDoCreator.
    >
    > An observation about the CommonAggregateComponent schema: the element
    > declarations are in alphabetic order; the type definitions are not
    > ordered ... is it good?
    >
    > Tomorrow and Wednesday I will be out of office, so I will not able to
    > join conf call.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Arianna
    >
    >
    > Il 19/03/2010 11:17, Peter L. Borresen ha scritto:
    >>
    >> Dear all
    >>
    >> The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are
    >> 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html
    >>
    >> Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23^rd
    >> of March 15.00 CET at
    >>
    >> STANDING CON CALL NUMBER
    >>
    >>     Skype: +9900827043982678
    >>
    >>     US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075
    >>
    >>     International: 201-793-9022
    >>
    >>     "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #
    >>
    >>        (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)
    >>
    >> Agenda:
    >>
    >> 1) Review of the schemas
    >>
    >> 2) Any other business
    >>
    >> I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:
    >>
    >> Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.
    >>
    >> Oriol:                                               Review Tendering
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Sven:                                               Review Catalogue
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Martin:                                           Review Ordering
    >> schemas
    >>
    >> Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.
    >>
    >> Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas
    >>
    >> Joao:                                               Review
    >> ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest
    >>
    >> Roberto:                                        Review
    >> RemittanceAdvice, Statement
    >>
    >> Ole:                                                  Review Utillity
    >> Statement
    >>
    >> Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas
    >> (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report,
    >> Product Activity
    >>
    >> Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF
    >>  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast,
    >> ForeCastRequest,
    >>
    >> ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)
    >>
    >> PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE
    >> COMPLETED THE REVIEW
    >>
    >> I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23^RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT
    >> TIME LIMIT
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    >> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10
    >> 20:33:00
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    * JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
    *
    * Document Engineering Services Ltd. - Alliance Member
    * UBL Italian Localization SubCommittee (ITLSC), co-Chair
    * UBL Online Community editorial board member (ubl.xml.org)
    * Italian UBL Advisor
    
      Roberto Cisternino
    
      mobile: +39 328 2148123
      skype:  roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc
    
    [UBL Technical Committee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
    
    [UBL Online Community]
        http://ubl.xml.org
    
    [UBL International Conferences]
        http://www.ublconference.org
    
    [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
    
    [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]
        http://www.ubl-italia.org
    
    
    


  • 6.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 17:15
    At 2010-03-22 17:59 +0100, Roberto Cisternino wrote:
    >5) Code lists
    >
    >     I think we should align some code lists available at UN/ECE
    >
    >Latest UN/ECE codelists are here:
    >http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml_schemas/index.htm#2009A
    
    The question to committee members isn't whether we should have code 
    lists, but rather:
    
      (1) - which code lists are to be included in the UBL 2.1 distribution?
    
      (2) - for each code list is it to be included in the special-purpose
            directory as a convenience for UBL users, or should it be
            engaged as a data type qualification in the committee-decided
            set of code list value qualifications?
    
    Regarding (2) it was proposed in Copenhagen that no new UBL 2.1 code 
    lists be engaged as data type qualifications other than any updates 
    available for those data type qualifications already engaged in UBL 2.0.
    
    Can you recommend which code lists should be included for the 
    convenience of UBL users, or justify if the committee should add any 
    particular ones to the set of distributed data type qualifications?
    
    . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
    
    
    --
    XSLT/XQuery training:         San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
    Principles of XSLT for XQuery Writers: San Francisco,CA 2010-05-03
    XSLT/XQuery training:                 Ottawa, Canada 2010-05-10/14
    XSLT/XQuery/UBL/Code List training: Trondheim,Norway 2010-06-02/11
    Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
    Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
    G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
    Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
    Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
    
    


  • 7.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 17:15
    At 2010-03-22 17:59 +0100, Roberto Cisternino wrote:
    >5) Code lists
    >
    >     I think we should align some code lists available at UN/ECE
    >
    >Latest UN/ECE codelists are here:
    >http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml_schemas/index.htm#2009A
    
    The question to committee members isn't whether we should have code 
    lists, but rather:
    
      (1) - which code lists are to be included in the UBL 2.1 distribution?
    
      (2) - for each code list is it to be included in the special-purpose
            directory as a convenience for UBL users, or should it be
            engaged as a data type qualification in the committee-decided
            set of code list value qualifications?
    
    Regarding (2) it was proposed in Copenhagen that no new UBL 2.1 code 
    lists be engaged as data type qualifications other than any updates 
    available for those data type qualifications already engaged in UBL 2.0.
    
    Can you recommend which code lists should be included for the 
    convenience of UBL users, or justify if the committee should add any 
    particular ones to the set of distributed data type qualifications?
    
    . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
    
    
    --
    XSLT/XQuery training:         San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
    Principles of XSLT for XQuery Writers: San Francisco,CA 2010-05-03
    XSLT/XQuery training:                 Ottawa, Canada 2010-05-10/14
    XSLT/XQuery/UBL/Code List training: Trondheim,Norway 2010-06-02/11
    Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
    Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
    G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
    Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
    Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
    
    


  • 8.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSCTuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 19:08



  • 9.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSCTuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 19:08
      |   view attached



  • 10.  A near to be final review of UBL 2.1 W3C Schemas

    Posted 03-25-2010 16:35
    Hello,
    
    please find my "near to be" final review of UBL 2.1 schemas.
    
    These are 15 section with possibly nested indications.
    
    Regards
    
    Roberto
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "cac:PartyLegalEntity"
    
    The "StakeholderParty" definition has several typing mistakes, the correct
    sentence is:
    
    An association to the list of stackholders who form a corporate or
    consortium.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    RemittanceAdvice:
    
    The RemittanceAdviceLine is missing a cbc:InvoicingPartyReference
    The cbc:InvoicingPartyReference available in the root is not sufficient.
    
    This reference is issued by the payee (seller/vendor)
    and the payer is requested to accompany the remittance with these reference.
    There could be more than one reference for multi-invoice reconciliation
    with payments
    and this reference is not strictly 1-to-1 with a payment or with an
    invoice, so it is up to the payee
    to specify such reference in the remittance head or for each remittance line.
    For example:
    
    Remittance sample:
    - Line 1	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 2	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 3	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 4	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    - Line 5	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    - Line 6	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    
    NOTE: These references are the "ONLY" information guaranteed to be
    transported across the banking channel (clearing system) until the end.
    
    Please review the following complete sample of a credit transfer to show
    the importance of such "reference" in the Financial Supply Chain:
    
    (1) - PROCESS: INVOICING
    
    B2B Channel: The Supplier issues an Invoice and provides one or more
    "references" for end-2-end reconciliation.
    
    [Customer/Payer]<---[Invoice]<---[Supplier/Payee]
    
    (2) - PROCESS: PAYMENT
    
    B2B Channel: The Customer send a Remittance Advice to the Supplier for 1
    or more invoices using the end-2-end references requested by the Supplier
    to accompany the remittance.
    
    [Customer/Payer]--->[Remittance Advice]--->[Supplier/Payee]
    
    Banking Channel: The Customer/Payer either directly or through an Agent
    initiates a Payment Initiation on the banking channel by specifying the
    end-2-end references requested by the Supplier.
                     The banking channel will transport such references til
    the end and the Supplier will receive a Payment Execution
    Advice containing such references for payment
    reconciliation.
    
    [Customer/Payer]--->[Payment Initiation]--->Banking Channel--->[Payment
    Execution Advice]--->[Supplier/Payee]
    
    
    (3) - PROCESS: RECONCILIATION
    
    The Supplier/Payee receives both the RemittanceAdvice and the
    PaymentExecutionAdvice and the reconciliation will be possible:
    
    Finally end-2-end references can be matched between the Remittance Advice
    and the PaymentExecutionAdvice,
    this way payments and invoices are correctly related with the original
    order/logic intended by the Supplier.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Invoice, FreightInvoice:
    
    The Invoice head and the Invoice Line are missing the
    cbc:InvoicingPartyReference
    for the same reason above described for the Remittance Advice.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Inside Party:
    
    1) The OutsourcedServiceProviderParty is not a correct business term and
    is changing the intended meaning.
    
       It should be:
    
       "OutsourcingServiceProviderParty"
    
       or just
    
       "ServiceProviderParty"
    
    2) The definition is to be defined:
     Proposal:  An association to a service provider party who acts as an
    outsourcer.
    
    3) Probably it could be better to change the cardinality as 0..n
    
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "Statement Line", BalanceBroughtForwardIndicator:
    
    Actual Definition: If true, indicates that the Statement Line contains a
    balance brought forward.
    Proposed Definition: If true, indicates that the Statement Line has a
    balance outstanding from the previous bill(s)
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    FinancingInstrumentCode (0..n)
    
    NOTE: I do not remember the requirement for 0..n cardinality.
          The Financing instrument code should be 0..1 (or even 1..1) to
    define which kind of TradeFinancing is adopted.
          We have already the cac:TradeFinancing inside PaymentMeans so we
    have already the chance of having different financing means.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    TradeFinancing:
    
    Move "ClauseCode" after "Clause"
    
    NOTE: This is usally what we did with other couples of textual and coded info
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under PartyLegalEntity:
    
    Add a new "CorporateStockNote" information entity after
    "CorporateStockAmount"
    
    Definition: Additional information related to the Corporate Stock Amount.
    
    Example:
    CorporateStockAmount = 1.000.000 EUR
    CorporateStockNote = Fully paid-up capital
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    TaxIncludedIndicator
    
    Definition is incomplete:
    It should explain its difference from the TaxEvidenceIndicator
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    JourneyID:  This is the Carrier and/or Trade Service "JourneyID", fine,
                but there are often a different JourneyIDs:
    
                - used within consortium of carriers (e.g. United Feeder
    Services, Inc.)
                  NOTE:In this case a Ship (or other means) is operating as
    part of an alliance, but each party has a different Journey
    ID (very bad yes!)
    
                - used by Container/goods terminals.
                  NOTE: Container terminals are a good sample as mny different
    carriers are visiting a terminal, thus using different
    JourneyIDs that cannot be unique from the Terminal point of
    view (every carrier has its voy counter and syntax)
                        That's why it is important to keep the relationship
    between different Journey IDs.
    
    I would suggest TSC to add other JourneyIDs with specified who is the
    issuer/owner
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    1) Another important information is the "Trade Service" which is a coded
    information showing which is the regular service provided by that
    carrier/transport mean.
    
       - Add a "TradeServiceCode" and a "TradeServiceName"
    
    2) I noted there is already a "OwnerParty" but it seems to generic for
    expressing an important info like the shipping line.
    
       The definition of this party could be tricky as usually we require a
    specific "ShippingLineCode" and "ShippingLineName" information, for
    instance.
    
       I would suggest to provide a wrapper of the plain Party aggregate (like
    we have for the AccountingCustomerParty in the Invoice)
    
       For instance:
    
       OwnerParty:
       - CarrierCode  0..1     (e.g. SCL)
       - CarrierShortName  0..1     (e.g. SAFMARINE)
       - CarrierGroupCode  0..1  (e.g. MSK)
       - CarrierGroupName  0..1  (e.g. MAERSK)
       - JointServiceGroupCode  0..1  (e.g. UFS)
       - JointServiceGroupname  0..1  (e.g. United Feeder Services)
       - Party  0..1
       - OperativeContact  0..1
    
       NOTE: the Party still provides the possibility to specify the legal
    name of the carrier and other possible info.
    
    3) If not already available upper in the hieararchy (in a better place),
       there could be the requirement of the following additional info:
    
       - Add a "Customs Forwarder" 0..1
    
    4) If not already available upper in the hieararchy (in a better place)
       there could be the requirement of these additional info:
    
       - Add a "MTOParty" (Multimodal transport operator) 0..1
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "RoadTransport" is no more identified by a single Plate ID information.
    For security reasons the Driver Surname and name or License to Drive ID
    could be required together the Plate ID.
    
    I suggest to enhance this part:
    - by changing the "LicensePlateID" into "TruckPlateID"
    - by adding a "DriverParty" or a "Person"
    
    NOTE: the License to drive (if required) can be specified on either a
    Party or Person aggregates.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "RailTransport" requires more information.
    
    I suggest to:
    - Change the "RailCarID" name to "CargoWaggonID"
    - Add a DocumentReference to reference a specific Raylways document.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "MaritimeTransport" requires more information.
    
    I suggest to:
    
    - Add an "InternationalRadioCallSignID"  (0..1)
    
      This is a more common Vessel identification used in the shipping chain.
      This is a unique identifier available from ITU where every Ship has a
    radio call sign ID.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "cac:Person"
    
    There is a missing a "PersonIdentity" information to be used to precisely
    identify a person:
    
    The PersonIdentity could be:
    - IdentityDocumentReference 0..1
      Samples:
    
      - license to drive
      - passport number
      - SSN (Social Security Number)
      - Fiscal Code
      - ... so on
    
    - Also a "DigitalIdentity" could be important as it is an actual
    information worldwide.
      Sorry here I do not have an idea of how we can provide this info !
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    -- 
    * JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
    *
    * Document Engineering Services Ltd. - Alliance Member
    * UBL Italian Localization SubCommittee (ITLSC), co-Chair
    * UBL Online Community editorial board member (ubl.xml.org)
    * Italian UBL Advisor
    
      Roberto Cisternino
    
      mobile: +39 328 2148123
      skype:  roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc
    
    [UBL Technical Committee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
    
    [UBL Online Community]
        http://ubl.xml.org
    
    [UBL International Conferences]
        http://www.ublconference.org
    
    [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
    
    [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]
        http://www.ubl-italia.org
    
    
    


  • 11.  A near to be final review of UBL 2.1 W3C Schemas

    Posted 03-25-2010 16:35
    Hello,
    
    please find my "near to be" final review of UBL 2.1 schemas.
    
    These are 15 section with possibly nested indications.
    
    Regards
    
    Roberto
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "cac:PartyLegalEntity"
    
    The "StakeholderParty" definition has several typing mistakes, the correct
    sentence is:
    
    An association to the list of stackholders who form a corporate or
    consortium.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    RemittanceAdvice:
    
    The RemittanceAdviceLine is missing a cbc:InvoicingPartyReference
    The cbc:InvoicingPartyReference available in the root is not sufficient.
    
    This reference is issued by the payee (seller/vendor)
    and the payer is requested to accompany the remittance with these reference.
    There could be more than one reference for multi-invoice reconciliation
    with payments
    and this reference is not strictly 1-to-1 with a payment or with an
    invoice, so it is up to the payee
    to specify such reference in the remittance head or for each remittance line.
    For example:
    
    Remittance sample:
    - Line 1	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 2	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 3	InvoicingPartyReference 123
    - Line 4	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    - Line 5	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    - Line 6	InvoicingPartyReference 5678
    
    NOTE: These references are the "ONLY" information guaranteed to be
    transported across the banking channel (clearing system) until the end.
    
    Please review the following complete sample of a credit transfer to show
    the importance of such "reference" in the Financial Supply Chain:
    
    (1) - PROCESS: INVOICING
    
    B2B Channel: The Supplier issues an Invoice and provides one or more
    "references" for end-2-end reconciliation.
    
    [Customer/Payer]<---[Invoice]<---[Supplier/Payee]
    
    (2) - PROCESS: PAYMENT
    
    B2B Channel: The Customer send a Remittance Advice to the Supplier for 1
    or more invoices using the end-2-end references requested by the Supplier
    to accompany the remittance.
    
    [Customer/Payer]--->[Remittance Advice]--->[Supplier/Payee]
    
    Banking Channel: The Customer/Payer either directly or through an Agent
    initiates a Payment Initiation on the banking channel by specifying the
    end-2-end references requested by the Supplier.
                     The banking channel will transport such references til
    the end and the Supplier will receive a Payment Execution
    Advice containing such references for payment
    reconciliation.
    
    [Customer/Payer]--->[Payment Initiation]--->Banking Channel--->[Payment
    Execution Advice]--->[Supplier/Payee]
    
    
    (3) - PROCESS: RECONCILIATION
    
    The Supplier/Payee receives both the RemittanceAdvice and the
    PaymentExecutionAdvice and the reconciliation will be possible:
    
    Finally end-2-end references can be matched between the Remittance Advice
    and the PaymentExecutionAdvice,
    this way payments and invoices are correctly related with the original
    order/logic intended by the Supplier.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Invoice, FreightInvoice:
    
    The Invoice head and the Invoice Line are missing the
    cbc:InvoicingPartyReference
    for the same reason above described for the Remittance Advice.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Inside Party:
    
    1) The OutsourcedServiceProviderParty is not a correct business term and
    is changing the intended meaning.
    
       It should be:
    
       "OutsourcingServiceProviderParty"
    
       or just
    
       "ServiceProviderParty"
    
    2) The definition is to be defined:
     Proposal:  An association to a service provider party who acts as an
    outsourcer.
    
    3) Probably it could be better to change the cardinality as 0..n
    
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "Statement Line", BalanceBroughtForwardIndicator:
    
    Actual Definition: If true, indicates that the Statement Line contains a
    balance brought forward.
    Proposed Definition: If true, indicates that the Statement Line has a
    balance outstanding from the previous bill(s)
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    FinancingInstrumentCode (0..n)
    
    NOTE: I do not remember the requirement for 0..n cardinality.
          The Financing instrument code should be 0..1 (or even 1..1) to
    define which kind of TradeFinancing is adopted.
          We have already the cac:TradeFinancing inside PaymentMeans so we
    have already the chance of having different financing means.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    TradeFinancing:
    
    Move "ClauseCode" after "Clause"
    
    NOTE: This is usally what we did with other couples of textual and coded info
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under PartyLegalEntity:
    
    Add a new "CorporateStockNote" information entity after
    "CorporateStockAmount"
    
    Definition: Additional information related to the Corporate Stock Amount.
    
    Example:
    CorporateStockAmount = 1.000.000 EUR
    CorporateStockNote = Fully paid-up capital
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    TaxIncludedIndicator
    
    Definition is incomplete:
    It should explain its difference from the TaxEvidenceIndicator
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    JourneyID:  This is the Carrier and/or Trade Service "JourneyID", fine,
                but there are often a different JourneyIDs:
    
                - used within consortium of carriers (e.g. United Feeder
    Services, Inc.)
                  NOTE:In this case a Ship (or other means) is operating as
    part of an alliance, but each party has a different Journey
    ID (very bad yes!)
    
                - used by Container/goods terminals.
                  NOTE: Container terminals are a good sample as mny different
    carriers are visiting a terminal, thus using different
    JourneyIDs that cannot be unique from the Terminal point of
    view (every carrier has its voy counter and syntax)
                        That's why it is important to keep the relationship
    between different Journey IDs.
    
    I would suggest TSC to add other JourneyIDs with specified who is the
    issuer/owner
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    1) Another important information is the "Trade Service" which is a coded
    information showing which is the regular service provided by that
    carrier/transport mean.
    
       - Add a "TradeServiceCode" and a "TradeServiceName"
    
    2) I noted there is already a "OwnerParty" but it seems to generic for
    expressing an important info like the shipping line.
    
       The definition of this party could be tricky as usually we require a
    specific "ShippingLineCode" and "ShippingLineName" information, for
    instance.
    
       I would suggest to provide a wrapper of the plain Party aggregate (like
    we have for the AccountingCustomerParty in the Invoice)
    
       For instance:
    
       OwnerParty:
       - CarrierCode  0..1     (e.g. SCL)
       - CarrierShortName  0..1     (e.g. SAFMARINE)
       - CarrierGroupCode  0..1  (e.g. MSK)
       - CarrierGroupName  0..1  (e.g. MAERSK)
       - JointServiceGroupCode  0..1  (e.g. UFS)
       - JointServiceGroupname  0..1  (e.g. United Feeder Services)
       - Party  0..1
       - OperativeContact  0..1
    
       NOTE: the Party still provides the possibility to specify the legal
    name of the carrier and other possible info.
    
    3) If not already available upper in the hieararchy (in a better place),
       there could be the requirement of the following additional info:
    
       - Add a "Customs Forwarder" 0..1
    
    4) If not already available upper in the hieararchy (in a better place)
       there could be the requirement of these additional info:
    
       - Add a "MTOParty" (Multimodal transport operator) 0..1
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "RoadTransport" is no more identified by a single Plate ID information.
    For security reasons the Driver Surname and name or License to Drive ID
    could be required together the Plate ID.
    
    I suggest to enhance this part:
    - by changing the "LicensePlateID" into "TruckPlateID"
    - by adding a "DriverParty" or a "Person"
    
    NOTE: the License to drive (if required) can be specified on either a
    Party or Person aggregates.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "RailTransport" requires more information.
    
    I suggest to:
    - Change the "RailCarID" name to "CargoWaggonID"
    - Add a DocumentReference to reference a specific Raylways document.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "TransportMeans"
    
    The "MaritimeTransport" requires more information.
    
    I suggest to:
    
    - Add an "InternationalRadioCallSignID"  (0..1)
    
      This is a more common Vessel identification used in the shipping chain.
      This is a unique identifier available from ITU where every Ship has a
    radio call sign ID.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Under "cac:Person"
    
    There is a missing a "PersonIdentity" information to be used to precisely
    identify a person:
    
    The PersonIdentity could be:
    - IdentityDocumentReference 0..1
      Samples:
    
      - license to drive
      - passport number
      - SSN (Social Security Number)
      - Fiscal Code
      - ... so on
    
    - Also a "DigitalIdentity" could be important as it is an actual
    information worldwide.
      Sorry here I do not have an idea of how we can provide this info !
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    -- 
    * JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
    *
    * Document Engineering Services Ltd. - Alliance Member
    * UBL Italian Localization SubCommittee (ITLSC), co-Chair
    * UBL Online Community editorial board member (ubl.xml.org)
    * Italian UBL Advisor
    
      Roberto Cisternino
    
      mobile: +39 328 2148123
      skype:  roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc
    
    [UBL Technical Committee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
    
    [UBL Online Community]
        http://ubl.xml.org
    
    [UBL International Conferences]
        http://www.ublconference.org
    
    [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]
        http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
    
    [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]
        http://www.ubl-italia.org
    
    
    


  • 12.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-22-2010 15:40
    Hi Peter & all, 

    I've been reviewing the eTendering document models and there are some issues I'd like to make you aware of:

    1) In the TenderingTerms ABIE there is no AppealTerms ASBIE. We should add this ASBIE there after the ContractAcceptancePeriod and before the Language with 0..1 cardinality.
    2) In TendererQualificationRequest  a BBIE called LegalForm as the first property is missing. This BBIE is used to inform the Official Journals about the legal form requested for potential the tenderers and should be 0..n as it is textual.
    3) Element TypeCode in ProcurementProject should be optional. 0..1 instead of mandatory.
    4) UBL maindoc TenderReceipt has two Note elements in the root. the last one should be removed. 
    5) UBL maindoc TenderReceipt requires a ASBIE Tender_ DocumentReference (0..n) to enable pointing to the received tenders.
     
    I haven't seen other relevant things.

    My apologies but I will no be able to call tomorrow.

    Regards, 
    Oriol


    El 19/03/2010, a las 11:17, Peter L. Borresen escribió:

    Dear all
    The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html
    Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23rd of March 15.00 CET at
    STANDING CON CALL NUMBER
        Skype: +9900827043982678
        US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075
        International: 201-793-9022
        "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #
           (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)
    Agenda:
    1)      Review of the schemas
    2)      Any other business
    I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:
    Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.
    Oriol:                                               Review Tendering schemas
    Sven:                                               Review Catalogue schemas
    Martin:                                           Review Ordering schemas
    Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.
    Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas
    Joao:                                               Review ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest
    Roberto:                                        Review RemittanceAdvice, Statement
    Ole:                                                  Review Utillity Statement
    Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report, Product Activity
    Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast, ForeCastRequest,
    ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)
    PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW
    I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT TIME LIMIT



  • 13.  Re: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rdof March 15 CET

    Posted 03-23-2010 09:08
    
    
      
    
    
    Dear all,

    The CPFR schemas  are OK.

    We will work on Arianna's observation on the order of element declarations in the CommonAggregateComponent schema.

    Best regards,

    Fulya

    Peter L. Borresen wrote:

    Dear all

    The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html

    Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23rd of March 15.00 CET at

    STANDING CON CALL NUMBER

        Skype: +9900827043982678

        US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075

        International: 201-793-9022

        "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #

           (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)

    Agenda:

    1)      Review of the schemas

    2)      Any other business

    I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:

    Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.

    Oriol:                                               Review Tendering schemas

    Sven:                                               Review Catalogue schemas

    Martin:                                           Review Ordering schemas

    Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.

    Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas

    Joao:                                               Review ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest

    Roberto:                                        Review RemittanceAdvice, Statement

    Ole:                                                  Review Utillity Statement

    Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report, Product Activity

    Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast, ForeCastRequest,

    ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)

    PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW

    I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT TIME LIMIT



    -- 
    PS: Please note the change in the phone/fax numbers...
    
    Fulya TUNÇER
    Software R&D Center
    Department of Computer Eng.
    Middle East Technical University
    06531 Ankara Turkey
    
    email: fulya@srdc.metu.edu.tr
    Phone: +90 (312) 210 1763
    Fax: +90 (312) 210 1837
    


  • 14.  SV: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Posted 03-23-2010 12:48
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Dear all

    I have the following comments for my review

    1)      The Quotation schema is missing in the package!

    2)      I would like to have the RequestedValidityPeriod in the RequestFOrQuotation moved so it aligns with the order, that is between the  lineCountNumeric and AdditionalDocumentReference

    3)      OptionalIndicator in RequestFOr must be optional and perhaps renamed to OptionalLineItemIndicator

    Best regards

    Peter

    Fra: Peter L. Borresen [mailto:plb@ebconnect.dk]
    Sendt: 19. marts 2010 11:17
    Til: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: 'Andy Schoka (E-mail)'; 'Ole Ellerbæk Madsen'; 'Joao Frade'
    Emne: [ubl-psc] eview of schemas, meeting in the PSC Tuesday the 23rd of March 15 CET

    Dear all

    The PSC is been given a task of reviewing the schemas (now there are 50) at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201003/msg00009.html

    Therefore I would like to call in for a PSC meeting Tuesday the 23rd of March 15.00 CET at

    STANDING CON CALL NUMBER

        Skype: +9900827043982678

        US/Canada toll-free: 1-888-350-0075

        International: 201-793-9022

        "Conference Room Number": 3982678 then #

           (applies only if calling one of the phone numbers)

    Agenda:

    1)      Review of the schemas

    2)      Any other business

    I have allowed myself to distribute some task to the group:

    Andy and the TSC:                     Review Transport schemas.

    Oriol:                                               Review Tendering schemas

    Sven:                                               Review Catalogue schemas

    Martin:                                           Review Ordering schemas

    Peter (me):                                  Review Sourcing schemas.

    Georg:                                            Review Billing schemas

    Joao:                                               Review ApplicationResponse, Attachment, DocumentStatus, DocumentStatusRequest

    Roberto:                                        Review RemittanceAdvice, Statement

    Ole:                                                  Review Utillity Statement

    Arianna:                                         Review eBiz schemas (Stock Availbillity Report, Instructions for returns, Invetory report, Product Activity

    Fulya:                                              Review the CPRF  schemas (ExceptionCriteria, ExceptinNotification, ForeCast, ForeCastRequest,

    ItemInformationRequest, ProductActivity, RetailEvent)

    PLEASE SEND A NOTIFICATION TO THE LIST WITH THE RESULT WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW

    I WOULD LIKE THIS BEFORE TUEDAY THE 23RD NOON. SORRY FOR THE SHORT TIME LIMIT

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2749 - Release Date: 03/18/10 20:33:00