Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.
We need to find out who had a requirement for the document
before we make final decisions to remove it. It's a little late in the
development process to delete documents after they've been announced
in the public domain (Kavi) without spending the time to find the
original owner, or spend the time to incorporate the requirements into
another document that we do wish to keep.
When this process of determining what documents to
add was in the Library Content committee, we spent a good amount of
time validating the requests and justification. I'm hesitant to decide
to remove it without further investigation.
The document type is very similar to the X12 824
transaction. If the message is properly annotated, it should not be
confusing.
Sylvia
From: Mark Leitch [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:28 AM
To: Tim McGrath;
Subject: 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/
>
>
>
>
