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: "'Tim McGrath'" <>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:14:13 +0200









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