AW: [ubl] clarification [ubl] Minutes for Europe/Asia TC meeting Wednesday 31st August

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: AW: [ubl] clarification [ubl] Minutes for Europe/Asia TC meeting Wednesday 31st August




From: "Michael Dill" <>
To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:34:53 +0200









Tim,

  I 
  hope that you will be able to explain the opinion to the real world, that 
  there is one party structure in UBL only! I assume that the real world 
  considers most of the role extensions as part of the party. details. But let's 
  see, what will happen.
  btw: 
  the more I look at the library(ies), the more I feel, it will be at least 
  extremely difficult to maintain, understand and reuse 
  this.
  regards
  Michael
  
    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath 
    [mailto:]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. 
    September 2005 08:42
An: 
Cc: 'Michael 
    Dill'; 
Betreff: Re: [ubl] clarification 
    [ubl] Minutes for Europe/Asia TC meeting Wednesday 31st 
    August

my point to michael was that UBL 1.0 does not 
    have "multiple structures for party" - we have only one structure for party. 
    when a party plays the role of Seller we have additional properties. But 
    that is not a new definition for party.  It is an extension of the 
    existing definition.  it seems a logical way to do extensions but i am 
    happy to see an alternative proposal.

or, are you suggesting that we 
    can only restrict structures (such as ABIEs) and not extend 
    them?

Sylvia Webb wrote:

      
      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.