RE: Header v. Line

Title: Re: Header v. Line

Mark,

 

It isn't my understanding that we are talking about an 
either or situation for delivery lines.  We must however remember that all 
commercial software can't be modified. All businesses don't have development 
staff that can customize software that is flexible enough to be enhanced. There 
are many users of commercial ERP packages that want to comply with standards but 
are prevented from doing so because of the software they use. IMO, whenever 
there are ways that UBL can accommodate the requirements of both groups of users 
without making the standard overly complex, we should attempt to do so. 
Government agencies who have policies of being friendly to small businesses 
(common in US), will also want to keep commercial software limitations in mind 
as they define their eBusiness requirements.

 

Regards,

Sylvia

From: Mark Leitch [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 2:35 AM
To: Tim 
McGrath
Cc: Sylvia Webb; Tim Benson; 'Peter Larsen Borresen'; Amabel 
Grant; 
Subject: Re: Header v. 
Line

Sorry.
To clarify....

What I mean is ‘if we DO 
NOT process at line level’ i.e. information that properly applies to the line 
must be expressed on the line e.g. delivery (even if every line is the 
same).

M

Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.:   +44 1932 821112
Cell.: 
 +44 7881 822999
Mail:   
Site: 
  www.tritorr.com

From: Tim McGrath <>
Date: Wed, 
07 Sep 2005 17:13:48 +0800
To: Mark Leitch 
<>
Cc: Sylvia Webb <>, Tim 
Benson <>, 'Peter Larsen Borresen' 
<>, Amabel Grant <>, 
<>
Subject: Re: Header v. 
Line

maybe i am getting this wrong but i dont think anyone is suggesting 
that we dont provide these details at line level.  we want to do that. 
 so your concern that we "cannot process at line level" is 
unfounded.

the only legacy requirement from UBL 1.0 is that we also 
provide an option to have some of these details at document level as well. 

so it cannot be either/or - it is both.

Mark Leitch 
wrote:

Re: Header v. Line I’ve read the responses to my 
  original email from Sylvia and both Tims.
 
 I do not believe 
  that this is an ‘80/20’ issue; it is far too fundamental to be a matter of 
  customisation.  If we cannot process at the line level throughout the 
  business process, we stand little chance of automating the process which, to 
  me (and OGC) is key.
 
 I think the argument about the 
  potential discrepancy between the capabilities of trading partners’ systems is 
  a circuitous one; the simple answer in Sylvia’s scenario is that, if the 
  standard in question insists on line level processing, the receiving partner 
  has not implemented the standard.  The Materials Management module of SAP 
  uses sub-line delivery schedules, but not all receiving partners use 
  SAP.
 
 I don’t think we can be seen to perpetuate this issue 
  into 2.0; its propensity to confuse is far greater than its propensity to 
  simplify.  As a facilitator to automating the ‘P2P’ process for buyers 
  and sellers alike, it’s simply not fit for purpose.
 
 M 
  
 
Mark Leitch
 Director - Tritorr Ltd
 Tel.:   +44 1932 
  821112
 Cell.:  +44 7881 822999
 Mail: 
    
 Site: 
    www.tritorr.com
 

 
 
 
  

  
  From: Sylvia Webb <> <mailto:> 
  
 Organization: GEFEG US
 Reply-To: 
  <> <mailto:> 
  
 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:19:33 -0700
 To: 'Tim 
  Benson' <> <mailto:> 
  , 'Mark Leitch' <> <mailto:> , 'Tim McGrath' 
  <> <mailto:> 
  , 'Peter Larsen Borresen' <> <mailto:> 
 Subject: 
  RE: Header v. Line
 
 How do you 
  address the issue of trading partner 1 sending delivery details at the line 
  level when the receiving partner's software can only accept them at the header 
  level?  
  
  
 Sylvia 
  Webb 
  

  
  From: Tim Benson [mailto:] <mailto:%5D> 
   
 Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:14 
  PM
 To: ; 'Mark Leitch'; 'Tim McGrath'; 'Peter 
  Larsen Borresen'
 Subject: Re: Header v. 
  Line
 
To me the 
  point is that one way (line-level) is always fit for purpose, while the other 
  way (document level) is sometimes OK and sometimes not. 
   
 
 A similar argument was used used for the benefits of 
  allowing missing end-tags in both HTML and SGML.  XML and XHTML insists 
  that all start tags must have end tags, even when it is “obvious” that this 
  data is redundant.  XML is right.  
 
 We really 
  have to bite the bullet and agree that if there is one way of doing something 
  that is always fit for purpose, it is illogical to allow any other way of 
  doing the same thing.  It justs adds to implementation and testing 
  costs.
 
 Tim Benson
 
 
  

  
  From: Sylvia Webb <> <mailto:> 
  
 Organization: GEFEG US
 Reply-To: 
  <> <mailto:> 
  
 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:31:32 -0700
 To: 
  'Mark Leitch' <> <mailto:> , 'Tim McGrath' 
  <> <mailto:> 
  , 'Peter Larsen Borresen' <> <mailto:> 
 Cc: 
  'Tim Benson' <> <mailto:> 
  
 Subject: RE: Header v. Line
 
 Mark,
 
You bring up an issue that has had much discussion within UBL with 
  no clear cut answers.  I have hands on experience with ERP systems for 
  small businesses as well as those from SAP and Oracle.  It never ceases 
  to amaze me when I hear about systems that do not support delivery information 
  at both the header and detail level, especially those for small and medium 
  size businesses.  
 
One of the fundamental principals of UBL uses the 80/20 rule of 
  designing the standard such that it meets 80 percent of the requirements for 
  e-documents with the other 20 percent being accommodated with customization. 
  Another principal is that we (the UBL development community) strive not to 
  develop standards that become too complex and expensive for small and medium 
  size businesses to use. This presents challenges that must be revisited from 
  time to time.
 
I 
  will add this to our action item list for discussion. 
    
  
  
 Regards,
 Sylvia 
  

  
  From: Mark Leitch [mailto:] <mailto:%5D> 
   
 Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:05 
  PM
 To: Tim McGrath; Sylvia Webb; Peter Larsen 
  Borresen
 Cc: Tim Benson
 Subject: Header v. 
  Line
 
I have started 
  to look at the UBL spreadsheets and the issues list.  I think we have a 
  very fundamental issue with this Header/Line thing and active consultation of 
  the ERP vendors may help.
 
 As you know, there are certain 
  items that I argue can only usefully be expressed at Line level and not 
  Header; Delivery is one of these.  I believe that even if the user of, 
  say, the purchasing system wants all ten Lines of a PO delivered to the same 
  address and is able to enter that in the PO or Requisition Header in the 
  system, the system usually will (and should) ‘copy’ this information into all 
  of the Lines and express it at Line level in the message.  This allows 
  the Seller, if required, to split the PO into separate delivery Lines (or 
  Invoicing Lines for that matter) without losing the specific delivery 
  details.
 
 Same argument applies on the Seller side with the 
  Order Response Simple.  It breaks the whole logic of the messages’ 
  facilitating an automated process.
 
 I don’t think that this 
  issue fits neatly into the issues list, but we must address and resolve 
  it.
 
 M 
 
Mark Leitch
 Director - Tritorr Ltd
 Tel.:   +44 1932 
  821112
 Cell.:  +44 7881 822999
 Mail: 
    
 Site: 
    www.tritorr.com
 

 
 
 
  

-- 

regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289 
  fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT 
ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web 
Services
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476