Hello,
I have a business question on this topic.
For which reason we are going to use a specific "Transport Contract" class
over the generic "Contract" class ?
From the information below I do not see a valid reason. I mean the
following information seems to me still related to *any* contract and
sub-contract.
So I would see a more simple solution where we just update the actual
cac:Contract by adding "NominationPeriod" and "ContractualDelivery" at the
end of its structure.
Moreover I would suggest to add a Sub-Contract (0..n) too.
New Draft Contract:
- ID
- IssueDate
- IssueTime
- ContractTypeCode
- ContractType
- ValidityPeriod
- ContractDocumentReference
- NominationPeriod
- ContractualDelivery
- SubContracts
- Contract (0..n)
Hope this helps...
Roberto
> Based on a question from Andy, I have thought of another option (D):
>
> (D) - we leave Consignment. Transport_ Contract.
> Contract as it is without changing it
>
- we keep the new Transport Execution Plan.
> Transport Contract as it has been proposed without changing it
>
- we change our presumption that two different
> ASBIEs cannot have the same UBL name
>
> There is a partial precedent for this in that we
> already have a conflict in UBL local names with
> both an ASBIE and a BBIE named "Location", but
> because they are in different namespaces this
> isn't a challenge for a programmer basing their
> logic on the namespace-qualified UBL name:
>
