Minutes for ALSC Call 6 February 11:00 AEDT ATTENDANCE Martijn van den Boogaard Matt Lewis Andrew Mitchell Levine Naidoo (convenor) Steve Ryan APOLOGIES Ken Holman received in advance REFERENCING THE SPECIFICATION the following should be used as a specific citation: OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) v2.2 the canonical 2.2 documents are available in the OASIS repository:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.2/ the working semantic libraries for this subcommittee: Google sheets are located in the ALSC google drive
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16YIef092Y7xBqeiLqevUglAxKxa5QjKG?usp=sharing REFERENCING THE SPECIFICATION the following should be used as a specific citation: OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) v2.2 the canonical 2.2 documents are available in the OASIS repository:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.2/ the working semantic libraries for this subcommittee: Google sheets are located in the ALSC google drive
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16YIef092Y7xBqeiLqevUglAxKxa5QjKG?usp=sharing REFERENCING THE SPECIFICATION the following should be used as a specific citation: OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) v2.2 the canonical 2.2 documents are available in the OASIS repository:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.2/ the working semantic libraries for this subcommittee: Google sheets are located in the ALSC google drive
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16YIef092Y7xBqeiLqevUglAxKxa5QjKG?usp=sharing STANDING ITEMS Review of minutes Minutes were accepted Review of DBC semantic model (Invoice) approach: Review model issues Optionality in single child elements Cardinality one Accounting Supplier and Customer Party Invoice line documentation (PO, Despatch and Receipt) Party Contact Use of CompanyID in PartyTaxScheme - is it ABN or Branch ID and Cardinality Industry Scenarios Existing trading networks A detailed analysis has been conducted on the MIGS published by Woolworths, Metcash and Coles. They all use the same version of EANCOM but to varying degrees - stats can be provided. The observations are that The Delivery ABIE child elements should be reviewed for cardinality to support the way EANCOM is used by the retailers The Shipment ASBIE within Delivery should be made optional to to support the way EANCOM is used by the retailers There is a finite list of supporting documents in the way EANCOM is used - should we create a code list for the DocumentType?- recommend to leave as per consumersâ implementation guide, as a courtesy there would not be too much effort to create a sample genericode file to assist with validations Item.BuyersItemIdentification should be made available due to being required by Woolworths Pricing can be done by basis value and measurement units which (within UBL) are attributes of price Linetotals inclusive of GST are also included in EANCOM - this may be a requirement for UBL2.3 under the principle that all values should be manifest and that there should not be any calculations in the rendering mechanism or even receipt. This is also a requirement within a state government implementation. Issue is raised -
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-182 GS1 XML - Levine
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1x_oFBQ-GNiv-ZuL1Uv96TMVkhxlCbL5tC6HxEbZsY60 Summary of most significant differences/deficiencies with current ALSC model some GS1 elements appear to be in other UBL documents, perhaps its due to a philosophical difference in that GS1 may cover a smaller number of documents due to reusing them across a number of business processes digital signature should be included from base UBL - to review under extension point address element should include additional elements from base UBL delivery element should include additional elements from base UBL there is an extensive list of supporting documents - should we create a code list for the DocumentType? - recommend to leave as per consumersâ implementation guide Shipment ASBIE within Delivery should be made available Payment Terms structure (GS1) is different from payment terms and payment means structures in UBL - ALSC model exludes the vast majority of base UBL elements - this work should be reviewed under the payment scenarios work There are a few invoice line item elements that donât appear to have an equivalent in UBL, however as a general impression it seems that these may be required for some unique use case or scenario (none existing could be found). Would recommend exploring at a later date should the need require and address as an extension point. Details regarding address elements EANCOM Addresses are unstructured GS1 XML Addresses are structured The ALSC address type is unstructured - agreed to keep base UBL cardinality for ID and Address type code so that addresses can be differentiated based on type Check if GS1 delivery location is distinct from delivery address or included. Does it need to be incorporated only in delivery or should it be part of all addresses? (Andrew) GS1 XML Address has geographic coordinates Suggest ALSC address allows geographic coordinates as the the delivery element has delivery address and hence geographic coordinates as well - agreed EANCOM allows delivery location as part of party identifier (GLN) Suggest delivery/delivery party contain the GLN and hence location for compatibility with EANCOM - agreed Payment Scenarios - Matt Lewis Payment via Card (Credit or Debit) e.g. Visa Debit Payment via BPAY Payment via online payment gateway (UI or API). e.g. PostBillPay, PayPal, AfterPay or other vendors. Payment via Direct Credit (within AU) Payment via Direct Credit (international) Payment via an NPP overlay (using any PayID variant). e.g. OSKO Payment via transfer of Crypto-currency asset/token. Payment via other method (as much as I dislike the concept many organisations still support payment over the phone, in person or via cheque. So our semantic model should support them to provide one or more textual payment instructions.) Partial or complete pre-payment. eg. a direct debit arrangements, partial deposit etc. Review payment scenarios in next session and determine child elements within PaymentTerms Working draft artefacts are in working drafts folder
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-australia/documents.php?folder_id=3205 Implementation guide - UBL-Local-Invoice-au-v1.0-wd01.docx Supporting artefacts (refer to ALSC-All.html for generated model) - UBL-Local-Invoice-au-v1.0-wd01 artefacts.zip Review application of Invoice policy requirements - refer
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UYGYcfJ08KHnM0BvkkhA4Re16kwmYXP6xSmqE7SdDzY Review business rules, feedback on rules is targeted for the next call Produce Schematron, including empty elements check TAX Category Codes Implementation guidance GST Free/ exempt examples Invoice as Receipt More test examples Actions: Chair of ABSIA to progress in March next year Documentation Approach Proposed approach for review and creation of ALSC artefacts with coaching from Ken When ready to convert working documents into committee notes TC Administration will provide a skeleton template (request starter document) upon registration of a project -
https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests - cnd01dw01 as working draft for artefacts - cnd01dw01 be reviewed under public consultation - Templates are available from OASIS - ALSC Artefacts should be: - spreadsheets - schemas & html - schematron - document (xml via docbook or word document) When non-OASIS resources are used it is essential to create a snapshot, eg at publication or on reaching a milestone create a zip file and store on OASIS Kavi server and reference the location of the zip file in the minutes. There are 2 types of references, use committee link to add revision and use public link for publication eg Archive only:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63462 https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/document.php?document_id=63462 Distribution:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=63463 https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/document.php?document_id=63463 Ken to explore use of an online service for publishing, to provide user id Latest docbook templates available at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/ and Docbook proforma at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.2/ Committee Note at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-Governance/v1.0/ P2P scope - numbered in priority order Purchasing (2) Order, Order Response Simple, Order Response, Order Change, Order Cancellation Fulfilment (3) Despatch Advice, Receipt Advice, Fulfilment Cancellation Accounts Payable Invoice including elaborate payment means (1), Remittance (1), statement (4), reminder (4), Utility Statement (4) JIRA tickets Summary -
https://issues.oasis-open.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UBL%20AND%20component%20%3D%20%22Australia%20SC%22 When creating tickets for the SC, remember to use âAustralia SCâ to distinguish between the following components by how they are described to be used as categories:
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:components-panel if you leave the Component/s field empty, the ticket will not show up in the SC summary filter. Status and resolution values: NEW - the issue has been created but not yet agreed to be in consideration or not for the development distribution in order for the issue to become active work for the committee the new ticket must be changed to OPEN or it will not be seen in the to do filter the other option on a new ticket is to change it to DEFERRED please remember to look at the open filter to ensure visibility:
https://issues.oasis-open.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UBL%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20component%20%3D%20%22Australia%20SC%22 OPEN - the issue is in consideration for the development distribution keep the issue OPEN when assigning to Ken for incorporation please remember to add a comment regarding expectations whenever you assign an OPEN ticket to another person for any action RESOLVED + Incomplete - the issue has been decided but not incorporated for test RESOLVED + Applied - the issue is incorporated in test but not released RESOLVED + Fixed - the issue is incorporated in a working draft version RESOLVED + Later - the issue is still up for discussion for a future minor revision but not the current development RESOLVED + No Action - considered as no action for any distribution RESOLVED + Cannot Reproduce - considered as no action for distribution APPLIED + Fixed - the issue is included in a public review (record the availability of the disposition once review opened) DEFERRED - the issue is not in consideration for any minor revision please remember to use this when creating new tickets for backwards-incompatible changes See also the discussion on the status workflows here:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201709/msg00000.html Members please note to discuss ticket issues as comments to the ticket so that we can audit the discussion when making decisions about the ticket, without having to find the discussion on the main mail list RECRUITMENT announcement made at ABSIA conference - no further progress to report Possible membership increase with state government agencies FACE TO FACE MEETING 6 March 11am AEDT CONFERENCE CALL SCHEDULE 20 February 11am AEDT (chaired by Steve Ryan) 6 March 11am AEDT 20 March 10am AEDT 3 April 9am AEDT SC Calendar -
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-australia/calendar.php SC Calendar subscription link - webcal://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup_feeds/ical/my_vcalendar.ics?token=f352ce7037f9b5ccc709d6085becd4e0&workgroup_id=559 OTHER BUSINESS None Thank you Levine Naidoo +61481471758