Re: [ubl-l10n] Additional questions and comments regarding AllowanceCharge

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

The only way to specify Payment Means in an Order is from an AllowanceCharge, so i suspect you would need to create an Allowance Charge to specify the Payment Means of an Order.

I tend to agree that this is not a good structure. It would be better to just have Payment Means for the Order.  I will ask the Library Content team if they can see why it was not done this way originally.


Yukinori Saito wrote:

Dear Tim McGrath,

Thank you very much for your reply.

May I ask a question regarding the previous question (3)?

We understood that the meaning of AllowanceCharge is the allowance (that
reduce the amount) and Charges (that increase the amount). The
AllowanceCharge is a ASBIE for a kind of optional amount (price).
Let's suppose an Order, that has a base Price, and that does not have
AllowanceCharge (additional amount).
In this case, if the Buyer wants to specify the PaymentMeans, what does he
do?
Does he specify the AllowanceCharge to specify the PaymentMeans?
He wants to specify LineExtensionTotalAmount, BasePrice and PaymentMeans. He
does not want to specify the AllowanceCharge.
I think, in the current structure of UBL Order, he has to specify the
AllowanceCharge to specify the PaymentMeans.

This is the reason that the PaymentMeans should be independent to
AllowanceCharge.
I think that the ASBIE of PaymentMeans should be directly located under the
ABIE of Order.

Best Regards,
Yukinori Saito
------------------------------------------------------
Yukinori Saito
Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan (ECOM)
E-mail: y-saito@ecom.jp
Tel: +81-3-3436-7542    Fax: +81-3-3436-7570
------------------------------------------------------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: "Yukinori Saito" <y-saito@ecom.jp>
Cc: <ubl-l10n@lists.oasis-open.org>; "EDIgr)Tamori" <tamori@ecom.jp>;
"EDIgr)Takao" <takao@ecom.jp>; "EDIgr)K.Wakaizumi" <waka@ecom.jp>;
"EDIgr)K.Mizoguchi" <mizoguchi@ecom.jp>; "EDIgr)H.Sugamata"
<sugamata@ecom.jp>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl-l10n] Additional questions and comments regarding
AllowanceCharge


my apologies for not replying sooner. i hope this answers your questions.

feel free to ask again of they don't!

Yukinori Saito wrote:

  

2. Regarding AllowanceCharge
We understood that the meaning of AllowanceCharge is the allowance (that
reduce the amount) and Charges (that increase the amount). The
AllowanceCharge is not merely payment terms.

The followings are the additional questions and comments.
(1) Is the amount of AllowanceCharge the PaidAmount under Payment under
PaymentMeans?

    

The PaidAmount can be any value - but typically it would cover the
Amount of the AllowanceCharge

  

(2) If yes, we think that the PaidAmount should be placed under
AllowanceCharge directly. We think the structure, that the PaidAmount is
located under PaymentMeans, is a little bit strange or difficult to
understand.

    

i am not sure of why this eveolved this way, but i suspect we anticipate
someone specifying a payment means without any actual payment.

  

(3) We think that PaymentMeans should be independent to AllowanceCharge.
The PaymentMeans should be located under several amounts (e.g.
LineExtensionTotalAmount, LineExrtensionAmount, PriceAmount, PaidAmount)





    

PaymentMeans can apply to the whole Invoice, to individual
AllowanceCharges that apply the whole Invoice or to specific
AllowanceCharges for each LineItem.

We do not separate LineExtensionTotalAmount, but i think you may be able
to do so by using an AllowanceCharge.ID to denote this.

  

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160