Mark
If you were to put this to a vote in PSC I'd vote against changing it - with the reasons:
1. it would take too long (not enough time available) to go back over this now
2. this is a core part of the UBL procurement documents
3. just saying it looks inconsistent isn't, to my view, enough
- generally inconsistencies appear to be so at first glance but looking into it further with the original reasoning often reveals good reasons why something is so - that's my experience in UBL anyway (after all there have been things to consider such as alignment with EDI standards which do have some peculiarities - but sometimes for good reason and usually with an investment of implemenation to consider).
4 - the rule is to avoid semantic changes where possible and that would especially apply to deletions
All the best
Steve
>>> Mark Leitch <> 26/10/05 16:21:21 >>>
I just want to see consistency in approach. Either all lines should have a
Line Status Code or none should.
M
Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.: +44 1932 821112
Cell.: +44 7881 822999
Mail:
Site: www.tritorr.com
> From: Stephen Green <>
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:06:03 +0100
> To: <>, <>
> Subject: Re: SV: [ubl] Use of LineStatusCode
>
> What if I can remember there was lots of discussion to add Line Status Code
> but can't remember all of it and don't have time to go back to all the emails,
> etc concerning it?
>
> What if we did this to every BIE we didn't personally understand?
>
>>>> Mikkel Hippe Brun <> 26/10/05 14:58:29 >>>
>
> ...
>
> In my opinion LineStatusCode should be removed if someone cannot come up
> with a good explanation and business case for its use.
>
> - Regards Mikkel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
