Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.
I thought the Application Response was simply going to be an acknowledgement of receipt that could be used for any message.
The Account Response is the accounting equivalent of a PO Response (not simple !!) stating what the sender believes is wrong with a particular accounting document [line].
I see the requirement for the former but my personal opinion is that the latter should be removed as
I think it’s confusing to have a non-tax document at that point in the process and
realistically, this is going to involve human intervention and a phone call / email.
M
Mark Leitch
> From: Tim McGrath <>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:01:16 +0800
> To: <>
> Subject: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.
>
> We still need to decide what to do about these two document types. They
> both appear to do the same function (allow an application level response
> to a transaction), but they have different structures. I would like to
> only use one.
>
> My simple assessment is the Application Response is based on the EDIFACT
> APERAK document but the Account Response is designed to reference
> specific lines on documents. Can we get some debate on this?
>
> NB whichever structure we agree on can i suggest we call it an
> 'Application' Response as I am not sure how it could be seen as
> response from an 'Account'.
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
>
> DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business
> Informatics and Web Services
> http://www.docengineering.com/
>
>
>
>
