AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used ABIEs  was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 18,2




From: <>
To: "Anne. Hendry@Sun. Com \(E-Mail\)" <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:50:27 +0200









Anne, 


sorry, 
next time I'll mention explicitely, if something is a comment for the issue 
list.Please do me the favor to add my comments to 
18.2. At least the topic 2/  and 3/b refer directly and immediately to 18.2 
I think, it is worth to be considered as a comment, if somebody disagree with 
the existing proposal as of the issue list and if this somebody wrote 
arguments.
 
Dear 
All,
please 
let me underline that Issue list line 113 with the Commend Id 'b.1' is a very 
basic issue for CCTS compliance and should be considered as an UBL 1.0 
issue
Thanks
Michael

  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:  
  [mailto:]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. Juli 2004 
  19:14
An: 'Tim McGrath'
Cc: 
  
Betreff: AW: [ubl] Definitions for re-used 
  ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 
  18,2


  I 
  think that this discussion has been addressing different 
  points:
   
  
  1/ Tim,  you are obviously making a point about 
  ASBIEs in general. 
   
  2/ 
  In 18.2 Yukinori Saito is raising a Controlled Vocabulary issue and he 
  proposes replacement of Customer by Seller. But shouldn't the replacement 
  proposed be Buyer instead? 
   
  3/ I 
  am talking about BBIEs and the UBL data model itself. There are two 
  issues:
   
  a) 
  CCTS compliance
   
  The 
  DEN and definition should always match each other. In the cases of the two 
  BBIEs that Yukinori Saito refers to,  namely 'MaximumBackOrderQuantity 
  and MinimumBackOrderQuantity in LineItem (ABIE)', the DENs and definitions do 
  not match, as required by CCTS. Either i) the DEN is 
  correct in which case the model is OK but the definition should not include 
  any mention of customer (or seller or...) or ii) the 
  definition is correct in which case the UBL data model DEN needs changing and 
  as a consequence the UBL data model will need to be changed. A new 
  ABIE is required which will enable specific BBIEs to be defined to include 
  the concept of 'Customer (Seller?Buyer) approved' in their name as 
  an extra qualification.
   
  
  b) The UBL business requirement
   
  I do not understand from a business perspective why a seller should 
  ever approve a backorder quantity to be backordered. IMHO it is a customer 
  (buyer) who may do this. 
  But in any case I even tend to 
  disagree that any party role is pertinent to this definition and therefore I 
  favour case a) i) i.e. the removal of the concept of party from the 
  definition, as a proposed solution to this issue. 
   
  Michael
   
  BTW:
  > 
  The EDIFIX view  you 
  attached is not showing the correct definitions.
Please let me draw 
  your attention to the reason of the EDIFIX view I sent: It shows the four 
  places where the Line Item.Details is reused. And this is what the text of the 
  email said. And the definition an user can see is correct. And there is 
  just one definition and not many. (Where I was not correct is to use the term 
  ABIE inestead of ASBIE.) 
   
   
   
   
  
    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath 
    [mailto:]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Juli 2004 
    03:56
An: Michael Dill
Cc: 
    
Betreff: [ubl] Definitions for re-used 
    ABIEs was:Re: [ubl] for Anne(?) AW: [ubl] Issues triage ad issue 
    18,2

i think what you are talking about is the 
    definitions of the ASBIE for Line Item. Details.  That is, where Line 
    Item. Details is re-used it has a different definitions.

So the place 
    to look for its different usages is at the ASBIE level.  We dont need a 
    qualifier as the context of the ABIE in which the ASBIE appears gives 
    that.

The qualification (if any) of any ABIE happens when it is 
    re-used (ie when it is used in an ASBIE)  so that is where the 
    qualifers should be.

So we have things like...

ASBIE Order 
    Line. Line Item.  defined as "information directly relating to a line 
    item of a transaction. It identifies the item but only includes details 
    about the item that are pertinent  to one occurrence on a line item, 
    e.g. quantity etc."

ASBIE Order Line. Seller Proposed_ Substitute 
    Line Item.  defined as "the item(s) that the seller proposes for the 
    substitution - the original ordered quantity, pricing etc, which may be 
    different from the substituted item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment 
    details etc will be the same."

ASBIE Order Line. Seller 
    Substituted_  Line Item.     defined as "item(s) 
    replaced by the seller - the original ordered quantity, pricing etc which 
    may be different from the substituted item. It is assumed that hazard and 
    shipment details etc will be the same."
and
ASBIE Order Line. Buyer 
    Proposed_ Substitute Line Item.  defined as "alternative item(s) 
    acceptable to the buyer - quantity, pricing etc which may be different from 
    the preferred item. It is assumed that hazard and shipment details etc will 
    be the same."

Al  these are re-uses of LineItem. Details. 
     All have defintions that relate to their re-use.  None require 
    any qualification of the object class.  The qualification is of the 
    property term (in other words the target object class) of the ASBIE. 
     The EDIFIX view  you attached is not showing the correct 
    definitions.

Saito-san's question is not related to definitions - it 
    is terminology.  elsewhere  we refer to seller party but in one 
    place we use the term customer - clearly this was an oversight and 
    re-inforces the need for a controlled vocabulary.

Michael Dill 
    wrote:
Hi Anne, hi TC,
please let me propose to add the following comment for this item 18,2 of
Yukinori Saito:
Yukinori Saito wants to change 'customer' to 'seller party'. Behind this we
do have a very basic conceptual question. The definitions in question of
e.g. Line Item. Maximum_ Backorder. Quantity is defined in reusable 'Line
Item. Details'.
Line Item. Details is directly reused in four other ABIEs (see attached
*.doc file). The very basic definition as of the Reusable Library cannot
express the specific needs of these four reusages.

IF UBL agrees that definitions shall be meaningful, THEN a place is needed
where these meaningful definitions shall be written. The current structure
of the spreadsheets does not allow this, but CCTS does requires this, I
think.

There are three or four ABIE needed, which base on 'Line Item. Details'.
These ABIE should restrict the underlying one and can have more specific
definitions due to the specifis usage.

In such a case, they need an Object Class Term Qualifier.IMHO this is what
Mark also mentioned in one of his emails.


Best regards,
Michael