MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] clarification [ubl] Minutes for Europe/Asia TC meeting Wednesday 31st August
From: "Sylvia Webb" <>
To: "'Tim McGrath'" <>,"'Michael Dill'" <>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:50:31 -0700
Tim, you said "the backward compatibility is only
broken at a syntactic level (except in one case of Allowance Charge.
CurrencyCode). we are desperately trying to keep 2.0 as semantically
compatible with 1.0 as we can. that means unless we find 1.0 is broken (as
in the case mentioned) we would be very reluctant to change existing
structures."
I did not notice these multiple
structures for party when 1.0 was developed. My preliminary research shows
that mostly high-end ERP packages support the use of multiple structures
for party. I can name 5 popular ERP software packages in the U.S. for small
to medium size (revenues >$10 million < $100 million) companies that only
support one structure for party. If you need multiple structures, you must
create them yourself, and, they can only be restrictions of the base
party. There are 3 well known accounting packages for companies with
revenues of less than $10 million that include modules for sales and purchasing
that do not support any changes if you need to define or
use multiple structures for party. Buyer and Seller are
universally required for all businesses of all sizes that are involved in
commerce and trade.
I agree we need to meet the needs of
the existing structures defined in 1.0. I think we also need to find a way to do
it that supports the widest possible user community. The number of
1.0 implementations is low because the standard is in its infancy. Now is the
time to recognize the limitations potential UBL users might have with
multiple party structures and change it when the user community is small,
not after such a change will impact a much larger user audience because the
standard is more mature.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Tim McGrath
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005
6:00 PM
To: Michael Dill
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ubl] clarification [ubl]
Minutes for Europe/Asia TC meeting Wednesday 31st August
my apologies i thought i had sent this but it got held up in my
drafts folder :-[
just so
we dont lose track of this, I will reference your email and the original minutes
in the minutes of yesterday's call.
Michael Dill wrote:
Tim,
obviously I was not able to describe clear enough, what my concerns are.
1. Here is the clarification for point b)
Tim minuted, that there are some concerns about the definition. In case, I
said this, then I apologize: I meant the structure mismatch between the
three existing parties. He argued, and I do not agree, that not to change
this is necessary to maintain compatibility. When it became clear that there
will be no minor version 1.1 but a major version 2.0, a number of backward
compatibility was broken anyway.
