SV: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.

Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.

Hi 
Sylvia

 

I am 
the original proposer for the accountResponse. We original suggested an 
InvoiceResponse or an ApplicationResponse used for billing purpose. Therefore it 
makes good sense to replace this dokument type with an 
ApplicationResponse.

 

mvh

 

Peter

  
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Sylvia Webb 
  [mailto:]
Sendt: 23. november 2005 
  03:19
Til: 
Emne: 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/
> 
  
> 
> 
>