ubl — archive

[Roberto Cisternino]

Hello, as an additional alternative I would suggest to use some additional CCTS annotations while keeping a generic meaning for the Contract. 1) 2) Hope this helps. Roberto > 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting 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"