SV: [ubl-psc] Lastest changed agreed with Peter

I would have expected Party to have cardinality 1, not 0..1

 

Do you have any arguments of letting this be optional?

 

/Peter

 

Fra: JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
[mailto:] 

Sendt: 22. januar 2010 16:40

Til: Arianna Brutti

Cc: ''; Georg Birgisson; Tim McGrath

Emne: [ubl-psc] Lastest changed agreed with Peter

 

Hello Arianna,

as agreed with Peter I provide you the structure of the Service Provider Party
ASBIE:

Naming is changed slightly to expand the usage possibilties.

ServiceProviderParty (0..n)

    -
ID                                        
(0..1)

    -
ServiceTypeCode                
(0..1)

    - ServiceType         
               
(0..1)           textual

    -
Party                                    
(0..1)

    -
ServiceContact                     
(0..1)

Definition:  An association to the Service Provider Party (e.g. the
outsourcing party)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMAINING ISSUES FOLLOWS ( WE FORGOT THESE ! ):

We still miss this part to be applied by eDoCreator:

 

  
  
6

  
  
  
FIRTG.17

  
  
  
To be updated by eDoCreator.

  
  
  
Current disposition:

  The session information is not related to the document but to the
  process.  We resolved to add a CollaborationID in order to correlate the
  document with its process.  Session data cannot be added on the way as
  the document could be signed. Add CollaboratioID in all documet below
  ProfileID.  See remark for definition

  
 

and this one to be discussed with Tim:

 

  
  
11

  
  
  
FIRTG.06

  
  
  
Waiting for further discussion

  
  
  
The end-2-end identifier, as intended by ISO20022, is the
  same concept of the cbc:InvoicingPartyReference we currently have in the UBL
  RemittanceAdvice document.

  The definition is strictly that one provided by UBL 2.0, "The Invoicing
  Party's reference to the payment, previously requested of the Payer to
  accompany remittance."

  Into UBL this is a textual reference and not an identifier, but the bigger
  problem is to clarify the relationship between this reconciliation reference
  information and the Invoice line items.

  I think there is not a precise rule for this, as it is up to the Invoicing
  Party to indicate one or more references for reconciliation purposes.

  Such reference could be associated to a single invoice line item, a set of
  line items, a complete invoice, more than one invoice and even different
  parts of different invoices.

  The solution seems to be to provide this InvoicingPartyReference at line Item
  and in the root of the document (RemittanceAdvice and Invoices)

  
  
  
To be evaluated by Tim McGrath as this is a cross-domain
  information transported end-2-end for reconciliation purposes.  Also it
  impacts on many UBL documents (Invoice, RemittanceAdvice, ...)

  
 

end the last:

 

  
  
19

  
  
  
FIRTG-C.05

  
  
  
Waiting fro further discussion

  
  
  
If the account owner is a private person and not an
  organization, the bank requires a Person identification (Fiscal code, SSN,
  Passport ID, ...) of the account Owner.

  

  Example: In Italy the Owner's fiscal code is required (Codice Fiscale)

  

  NOTE: This is similar to the PersonID I asked to add to cac:Person (see
  "PersonIdentification" scheme available as codelist on ISO20022)

  
  
  
Add a cbc:OwnerID (0..1) to the cac:FinancialAccount

  
 

 

-- 

JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino

 

 

  
  
mobile: +39 328 2148123 

  
 

 

  
  
skype: roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc 

  
 

 

  
  
[UBL Technical Committee]

  
  
  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
  

  
 

 

  
  
[UBL Online Community]

  
  
  
http://ubl.xml.org 

  
 

 

  
  
[UBL International Conferences]

  
  
  
http://www.ublconference.org
  

  
 

 

  
  
[UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]

  
  
  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
  

  
 

 

  
  
[Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]

  
  
  
http://www.ubl-italia.org