ubl-tsc — archive

RE: [ubl-tsc] Minutes of Meeting - Thursday, 7 December 2006

From: Tim McGrath <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:54:00 -0000



  
  


Ok i will fix this in the next waybill exmaple.  i should get this out
over the weekend.


Kama, Kamarudin Bin Tambi wrote:


  
  

  
  Tim,
  I’ve gone
thru a bit more on the
sample Waybill xml instance. Have additional comments, as follow:
  
  
    TransportHandlingUnit.TotalGoodsItemQuantity
= 10 (this should be correct)
    TransportHandlingUnit.TotalPackageQuantity
= 10 (should this be 1, I believe there is only 1 package, and that
package has 10 quantity)
    TransportHandlingUnit.ActualPackage.Quantity
= 10 (this should be correct)
    Maybe it would be good to
mention the TransportEquipment used to transport the goods.  
  
  
  Rgds
  
  
  
  
  
  From: Tim
McGrath [mailto:[email protected]]

  Sent: Thursday,
December 14, 2006
9:38 AM

  To: Kama, Kamarudin
Bin Tambi

  Cc:
[email protected];
Eric Tesoro; [email protected]; [email protected]

  Subject: Re: [ubl-tsc]
Minutes of
Meeting - Thursday, 7 December 2006
  
  
  we can talk through this on
today's call, but here are
my first reactions...


  , Kamarudin Bin Tambi wrote:


  
  Hi
Tim,
  Have gone
thru the sample waybill xml
instance. Just a couple of queries/clarification.
  
  1. This is
an air waybill
  yes


  
  2.
Final delivery transport
service is 'pier-to-pier'. Shouldn't it be like in the Excel file for
the
common library, which mentions 'pier-to-door'. Also is ‘pier’
correct, since we’re shipping the goods by air?
  pier-to-pier is legitimate but
as you say probably not
for air freight.  the original document was sea freight but i changed
it
to airfreight  to support the status documents andy is working on. 
however i did not really think it through well enough.  so i suggest we
rethink the shipment stages.


  
  3.
Transport mode type refers
to the mode of transport. The value of 3 as per un/ece rec 16 in
section 3.4 is
the classifier code for location, refers to the road terminal. Are we
using the
correct un/ece rec?
  well spotted!  it was meant to
say un/ece
recommendation 19 (Modes of Transport).


  
  4.
Shipment stage has land
and air, goods end at airport and not the final destination. Is this
correct?.
  
  yes, i wanted to show that the
consignee was
responsible for final delivery  but this may be too complex and lets
make
it simpler and ship door-to-door.


  
  
    
    I’ll go thru
it further and send
more feedback, if any.
    
    Rgds
    
    
    

    
    
    
    From: Tim
McGrath [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday,
December 08, 2006
6:49 AM
To: Kama, Kamarudin
Bin Tambi
Cc: [email protected];
Eric Tesoro; [email protected];
    [email protected]
Subject: Re:
[ubl-tsc] Minutes of
Meeting - Thursday, 7 December 2006
    
    
    
    As discussed here is the
updated Waybill
document.  I also included the stylesheets from ken, so if you save
these
all into the directory that contains the waybill schema you should be
able to
view the layout as a table.  i use XMLSpy and the XSL layout option.

,
Kamarudin Bin Tambi wrote:



    
    -
Tim will update the waybill doc & send to all
    



    
    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    phone: +618 93352228  
    postal:    fremantle     6160
    web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    
    




    
    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 11/12/2006
    
      
  
  


  
  -- 
  regards
  tim mcgrath
  phone: +618 93352228  
  postal:    fremantle     6160
  web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
  
  
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.19/587 - Release Date: 14/12/2006

  


-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath