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

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.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.
    If different from Party. Details, then Seller and Buyer should be qualified
from the generic Party. Details. This would be a semantic CCTS restriction
and technically an extension. It could also be, but this is a different path
and not what I mentioned, a subset mechanism.