ubl — archive

[Ken Holman]

At 2010-07-22 16:27 +0200, Roberto Cisternino wrote: >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 ? Yes, the answer to that is critical to the direction we choose to take. > 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. Yes, this is my proposed solution (A) to this problem. All the more reason if they are not specific to transportation as I was worried they were. A note to the TSC: the existing Contract has only optional constructs so it would seem that (A) would meet your users needs by leaving the "old" constructs absent and only using the new constructs you have defined. >Moreover I would suggest to add a Sub-Contract (0..n) too. Can we please leave that question to the response to PRD01? I know it is a simple change but at this (very!) late stage to prepare PRD01 for review I would like to restrict discussions only to things that at this moment are broken or unresolved. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken > > At 2010-07-18 22:02 -0400, I wrote: > >>