Re: PaymentMeans doubt

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:56:42PM +0100, Stephen Green wrote:
> Pedro
> 
> One problem is that PaymentMeans MUST include a code which
> describes the type of payment.
> e.g.
> <cac:PaymentMeans>
>  <cac:PaymentMeansTypeCode>20</cac:PaymentMeansTypeCode>
>  <cbc:DuePaymentDate>2004-01-01</cbc:DuePaymentDate>
> </cac:PaymentMeans>
> would be valid
> 
> The PaymentMeansTypeCode values are defined in the
> UBL-CodeList-PaymentMeansCode-1.0.xsd Schema so you should
> be able to find a value for whatever type of payment you wish to cover,
> e.g. '20' stands for 'cheque payment'

    Ok, I got it. But I think there is a typo in the documentation. It
is written 'PaymentMeansCode', not 'PaymentMeansTypeCode'. That had me
confused.

> 
> However, the fact that PaymentMeans has a DuePaymentDate does not
> mean this is the best way to define a DuePaymentDate, unless you wish
> to specify DuePaymentDate as part of a requirement for payment being
> made in a particular way. Although the intention with UBL is to avoid
> there being more than one way to present any particular data entity, this
> has not been wholly successful in a few cases (BasePrice being another)
> and DuePaymentDate is one such case, perhaps.
> 
> You probably should be using PaymentTerms and SettlementPeriod
> to define a more general payment due date or period, perhaps with
> terms for discount if paid on time or a charge if paid late, which should
> all be possible with PaymentTerms and its members.
> 
> Is this more in line with your requirements?

    Yes. Thank you.
 

    Best regards

    Pedro Alves

-- 
Pedro Miguel G. Alves       
COMPTA - Parceria e Tecnologia      www.compta.pt
Tel:   +351 21 413 46 00  Av. José Gomes Ferreira
Fax:   +351 21 413 46 09     nº 13 1495-139 ALGÉS