ubl — archive

[Roberto Cisternino]

Ok Ken, forget sub-contracts now, also it is not viable as this addition would require a party too. I vote for (A) as nomination and delivery date are common concepts to transportation, constructions, ... I really prefere we enhance the actual base Contract for these new info. Roberto > 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: >> >>