ubl — archive

[Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com>]

Thanks, Sylvia, for your post on this! At 2006-08-12 11:17 -0700, Sylvia Webb wrote: >Based on my experience, I have serious reservations that there can be a >universal minimum subset defined by the UBL TC. I apologize that I did not make my post clear. I was not "proposing a set of minimal instances", I was reporting the set of minimal instances described by the existing schemas. >Such a subset can run afoul >of local, regional, and international laws which specify minimum data >requirements for specific transactions. Additionally, purchasing or contract >law can dictate what a minimum subset should be between trading partners. I agree, and I mentioned, that arrangements would exist where business and other requirements are being met by more than the minimal set of information items, but it was my impression that I could, indeed, on a limited basis or one-off situation accept from someone a minimal instance and be satisfied to pay an invoice based on the information in that small set, meeting the business requirements *outside* of the software. >As an example, if I establish a business relationship with a EU company or >government agency, I have different minimum data requirements that may be >specified in their subsets or guidelines plus additional requirements >specified by U.S. and California laws. If I am shipping hazardous goods, I >have yet another minimum subset of data required. Finally, depending on what >is specified in any purchase order or contract that I receive, I can have >multiple minimum subset requirements based on the legally binding >requirements of those documents. These minimum data requirements do not >include additional data that I may wish to include to satisfy any best >practices which my company wishes to follow. I totally understand, and that would be the norm ... I was only looking for the back door that might allow two new trading partners to use their existing systems in a mode of operation that put the burden of business rules *outside* of the UBL-based electronic system, working with information exchanged in the existing UBL framework. I'm not advocating that the business rules be abandoned ... that might be illegal. But I am suggesting that a minimal mode of operation of the system would exchange a basic level of information electronically between two brand new trading partners *without changing their software*, thus successfully conveying the core information of a transaction. In this way the recipient can choose to accept the information and satisfy the business rules outside of the software, but the settings of the software itself aren't a barrier to successfully exchanging the core of information in a temporary manner. *If* the only way two trading partners could exchange information is to have *all* the information totally contained in the instances, that would be a barrier to two new trading partners quickly exchanging information. But if the receiver agrees that the sender can send the minimal information and the receiver takes on the burden outside of the software of satisfying the business requirements they know that the sender doesn't know, then the transaction can happen quickly without the sender having to change their software. >IMO, there isn't any way that a standards body can have access to all of the >subject matter experts needed to consider all of the business rules and laws >which would be needed to determine an internationally acceptable minimum >subset. Again, I'm not trying to create a subset in my post, and I apologize that I conveyed my information in such a way to imply that I was. I'm just reporting what is currently defined in the 2-prd2-cd schemas as the minimum set of information items. I though that those members of the TC responsible for the spreadsheets might look at these reports and experience an "ah-ha!" moment and realize that something might be wrong. In that post I'm not proposing something, I'm reporting something. I hope this helps clarify my intentions of posting the ZIP file. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Vårø, Denmark 06-09-25/10-06 World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training. G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal