Re: [ubl-comment] Public Comment

you are certainly correct in recognizing the xCBL heritage - it was our 
starting point.

we also agree with your comments on sets of documents being exchanged. 
 however, this is mechanism best left to the transport, routing and 
packaging layer of the exchange protocol (eg. ebXML MS).  as all such 
system handle this differently, it is just adding to the confusion to 
suggest it be defined (once again) in the content vocabulary.

 wrote:

>Comment from: 
>
>Hi took a look at the UBL v1 beta and notice that it is very similar to xCBL.  I did work on and help define xCBL 3.0.
>
>A suggestion to you is for all the business documents you need to provide a way to send a LIST of the same type of document.  One of the limitation of xCBL is that transact one document at a time.  We the business need to send a batch of documents of the same type.
>
>Regards.
>
>To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to , or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>
>  
>

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