ubl — archive

[Stephen Green]

Sorry Tim, now I'm even more confused and perplexed. Quote "..if you are going to use MonetaryTotal" confuses me. Is the "you" here the modeller or the invoicer? The qualifiers seem to be a bit of a side issue. It still seems to still leave the invoicer having to provide a PayableAmount (as a mandatory part of the mandatory MonetaryTotal aggregate), even if that is not known at the time the document is created. This therefore ignores, it seems, my issue. Is there a hope that the added semantics of the qualifier will help? I'm not at all convinced it will. In fact I now think there may be even more cause for concern with this decision than there was before when considering the Order, etc. Making the MonetaryTotal optional for orders doesn't help at all if the MonetaryTotal itself includes a mandatory PayableAmount because then using MonetaryTotal at all forces the order placer to provide the PayableAmount which they might not know. The only way it would make some sense is if another Total aggregate is also provided (without a mandatory PayableAmount) and that would surely just add to the confusion. I got the impression from the original resolution in ISS-11 that there would be AnticipatedTotal rather than AnticipatedMonetaryTotal (the latter 'inheriting' a mandatory PayableAmount) in Order, etc. Are you saying there will be both? Or is the only way to provide an order total now to include a mandatory payable amount. That would be back to where it was before the issues. Thanks Steve >>> Tim McGrath