Thanks for your comments. I will review them over the next few days.
In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
by shipment and consignment. This has been almost impossible to
clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
definition I personally believe that the distinction between these two
is grey and ambiguous in the industry. The correct term depends on the
context in which it is used.
Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items
(available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract
document". And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
shipment can be transported in different consignments"
However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
collection of goods items. So we have viewed the Shipment as the
logistical collection of goods items. Just as there are cases where a
Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
different Shipments (for economics or ease of logistics). The TBG3
high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
is academic.
However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One
Shipment - Many Consignments. In which case it does matter that we get
the separation correct. This is a further argument for adopting the
simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical
details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
Orders). It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the
Shipment. Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
(what is required).
Does that help?
Flemming M鷲ler Hansen wrote:
> Hi Tim!
>
> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
>
> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from the
> danish requirements/proposals point of view
> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can get
> my answer:
>
> Notice:
> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
> consignments.
> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
> consignments.
>
> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before we
> continue?
>
> Who have the correct definitions available?
>
> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
>
> Best regards/
> Med venlig hilsen
> PROGRATOR
>
> Flemming M鷲ler Hansen
> eBusiness Consultant
> ====================================================
> EDI & Business Integration
>
> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birker鷣
> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
>
> http://www.progrator.dk
> ====================================================
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date: 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
