[ubl-lcsc] Re: UBL OrderResponse

[Michael Adcock <Michael.Adcock@apacs.org.uk>]

Hi, all!

I agree the Order Response (simple) will be a very tiny subset of the
Order Response (complex), which itself will be a mirror image of the
Order with the addition of the Seller's Order Number. 

The one significant difference between OR(c) and OR(s) is that the
Order Response (simple) could advise rejection, whereas I do not believe
one should/could/would reject using the Order Response (complex). This
alone, from a legal point of view, might justify having separate
messages.

The OR(s) could be described using a Message Implementation Guide (MIG)
saying how to use the OR(c) for a simple response. Or it could be
described as a separate message. Either way I think the work in
preparing documentation of OR(s) would be about the same. 

On the whole I favour a separate message because OR(s) is such a small
subset of OR(c) that it 'feels right' to do it that way, and because of
the one extra function of OR(s) which has a different legal standing.

I hope these thoughts are helpful.


Mike Adcock
Standards & Security Unit
APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
Mercury House, Triton Court
14 Finsbury Square
London EC2A 1LQ
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk

>>> Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 26/11/02 23:30:24 >>>
i thought we had agreed it was one message with two differing uses.  in

fact, the simple is potentially a subset of the complex.

we originally split this to make it easier to produce our second 
document defintion.  this no longer is necessary so we shouldn't get
too 
hung up about the difference.  it just seems simpler to leave them as 
they are.

are there any opposing views on this?


Wachtmann, Dagmar wrote:

>Hi,
>
>yesterday Michael and me, we talked again about the UBL messages. We
have one more question concerning the OrderResponse Message:
>
>In the Scope there is the OrderResponse (Simple) and the OrderResponse
(Complex) Message.
>
>Are these really TWO different messages or is this just ONE message,
which could be used in two different ways??
>
>
>Thank you very much and hope hearing you soon again,
>
>Michael and Dagmar
>
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 




----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


**********************************************************************
The opinions expressed are those of the individual and not the company.
  Internet communications are not secure and therefore APACS does not  
     accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee responsible for delivering this communication to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or
   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have
 received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
          telephone to arrange for its return.  Thank you.
**********************************************************************