ubl — archive

[Roberto Cisternino]

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: >