ubl — archive

[Roberto Cisternino]

The cac:Contract in the cac library should provide a more generic definition for the nomination period. Also the definition of the NominationPeriod is not complete as it is just explaining the begin of the period and not the end (I believe is the transport completation) Anyway I start thinking there is an overlapping between the ValidityPeriod and the NominationPeriod. So by interpreting the definition provided: "The nomination period is the period in which the transport user has to book the transport service before the transport should begin." In other words: If the transport user do not book the transport service within the period the contract is not valid ? This seems to be exactly a validity period. While the nomination period concept is more generally associated to nomination of candidates (e.g. assignment of a contract or sub-contract) Into this case the period would be different from a validity. At the end I believe that nomination period is not the right naming for the actual intentions and meaning (validity seems to be more appropriate) I hope I have been clear enough with my English... :) Cheers, Roberto > Hi Ken, > > according to the last decision of TSC, I implemented the option (A). > > So, to summarize now we have: > > Consignment. Transport_ Contract. Contract > > where "Contract" class is as follows: > 1 ID > 2 IssueDate > 3 IssueTime > 4 ContractTypeCode > 5 ContractType > *6 Note > 7 ValidityPeriod > 8 ContractDocumentReference > * 9 NominationPeriod > *10 ContractualDelivery > > (*added in UBL 2.1) > > The definitions related to ASBIE 9 and 10 are: > > NominationPeriod: An association to Period. The nomination period is the > period in which the transport user has to book the transport service > before the transport should begin. > > ContractualDelivery: An association to Delivery. > > I am asking if these definitions should be modified in order to specify > that these ASBIEs should be used only in transport context. > > Best regards > > Arianna > > > Il 23/07/2010 15:55, Jon Bosak ha scritto: >> Hello Arianna, >> >> I'm leaning toward solution A also, but with no real understanding >> of why the new items were felt to be necessary. >> >> As decided in this week's Atlantic TC call, however, the decision >> will be made by the UBL Transport Subcommittee (TSC). We are >> expecting that decision at next week's meeting. >> >> Jon >> >> Arianna Brutti wrote: >>> Hi Ken, >>> >>> I analized your proposals and my opinion is as follows: I don't like >>> solutions B and D, because of the problems that you described. >>> >>> From my point of view A solution is the best, so I agree with >>> Roberto, but I think also that the C solution could be acceptable. >>> >>> I am going to wait for your final decision before to act. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Arianna >>> >>> >>> >>> il Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:40:46 +0200 (CEST) >>> "Roberto Cisternino"