ubl-tsc — archive

[Jon Bosak]

Hello UBL PSC and TSC, Please forgive the mixing of issues here; I'm rushing to get this incomplete list to you in advance of your meetings this week. I believe the only issue here for TSC is the last one, 13.c., but it will require coordination with PSC. The issues/questions that follow arose from the document revision currently in progress. These all came up in the process of reorganizing the hub document; I have not actually begun an editorial review per se yet. There will probably be more issues after I've finished that, and then I will be asking everyone to carefully review the draft. I'm not asking for that level of review yet, just pointing to some issues and questions. I've attached a snapshot of the PDF in progress; note the new set of tables for doctypes in section 3.1. This PDF is a work in progress and not intended to serve as more than a reference point for what follows, so please don't circulate it further. 1. In the descriptions of document types in the new section 3.1, information is still missing for 3.1.3, Awarded Notification; 3.1.19, Exception Criteria; 3.1.20, Exception Notification; 3.1.21 Forecast; 3.1.22 Forecast Revision; 3.1.27, Instruction For Returns; 3.1.28, Inventory Report; 3.1.30, Item Information Request; 3.1.37, Performance History; 3.1.38, Prior Information Notice; 3.1.39, Product Activity; 3.1.45, Retail Event; 3.1.49, Stock Availabilty Report; and 3.1.54, Trade Item Location Profile. 2. 2.4.2.5 Punchout The current draft says: Punchout is a technological innovation whereby an Originator is able to directly access a Seller’s application from within their own procurement application. Does "their own procurement application" refer to the Originator or the Seller? 3. Continuing under Punchout: Originators leave (“punch out” from) their system and interact with the Seller’s catalogue to locate and order products, while their application transparently gathers pertinent information. Does "their application" refer to the application of the Originator or the application of the Seller? 4. 2.12 CPFR The description beginning on page 44 of the current draft says: As shown above, the seller and the buyer employ four main activities in order to improve the overall performance of the supply chain. It then goes on to list those four activities, which are Strategy and Planning; Demand and Supply Management; Execution; and Analysis. However, these four activities bear no relationship to the referenced figure, which divides CPFR into three activities called Planning, Forecasting, and Replenishment. The tripartite division in the figure fits the later discussion of individual processes (I think), but the overview language does not. Someone with a working knowledge of CPFR needs to rework this section. 5. 2.12.1 (CPFR) Current language: The first step of the CPFR Process continues with the exchange of messages containing purchase conditions. (In this initial OASIS public review build, these are assumed to be generic purchase condition messages. A UBL document type for Purchase Conditions is planned for addition in the second public review cycle.) Whatever happened with the proposed Purchase Conditions message? (I seem to remember that we decided it wasn't necessary; please confirm.) 6. 2.12.3 (just before 2.13) Current language: During this exception monitoring time, Buyer also waits for a possible Termination message indicating the end of the collaboration. The Termination message is not mentioned by the CPFR guidelines but is included in UBL to indicate the successful termination of the CPFR collaboration. There is no Termination document type in the set. Is this missing, or is the reference to some form of the Exception Notification? 7. 2.13.2.7 Current language: In the event of a change, either inside an item belonging to the CRP catalogue or the relationship of an item to the CRP catalogue, information about the change is sent to the retailer. I'm changing this to In the event of a change, either inside an item belonging to the CRP catalogue or the relationship of an item to the CRP catalogue, information about the change is sent to the retailer by sending an updated Catalogue document. Is this correct? How does the receiving party extract the changes from the updated Catalogue? 8. 2.13.3.3 (Figure 54) The diagram shows use of a document type called Change Order Response that is not in the UBL schema set. Is this supposed to be Order Change? 9. 3.3.1 Application Response and 3.3.2 Attached Document For "processes involved" we have "any" -- but Application Response does not appear in all of the process diagrams, and Attached Document appears (I think) in none of them. 10. 3.1.6 Catalogue "Processes involved" lists only Catalogue, but in fact the doctype is used in a number of processes. Similar comments apply to Despatch Advice (which lists only Fulfilment) and several others. 11. A.5 Expected Additions in PRD3 Current language: Two additional document types, CatalogueTemplate and PurchaseConditions, are expected to be added to UBL 2.1 following this second public review (PRD2), that is, in the third public review cycle (PRD3). Note that the names of these document types may change before their inclusion in PRD3. What's the status of this? 12. (Throughout) The document types Document Status, Document Status Request, Item Information Request, and Performance History appear nowhere in the process diagrams and in most cases have no apparent users or use. 13. 2.18 Party Roles The table needs a complete revision. Here are three issues I ran across in working with the reorganization. 13.a. A document called Account Response is referenced in the entries for Customer Party/Accounting Customer and Supplier Party/Accounting Supplier in the table of Party Roles, but no such document type exists. 13.b. The party role for Party/Receiver is described as: The party receiving a document. The party receiving a Catalogue. Catalogue items may never be ordered, so the recipient of the Catalogue is not an Originator or a Buyer. The first and second sentences appear to contain some redundancy. 13.c. The table of Party Roles appears to contain no information regarding the parties and document types involved in the Intermodal Transport processes. Attachment: 20111004-opt-UBL-2.1.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document