|Subject:||Re: [ubl-psc] Account Response and Application Response.|
|From:||Tim McGrath (tmcg...@portcomm.com.au)|
|Date:||Nov 22, 2005 7:37:29 pm|
i am not proposing deleting anything. I am pointing out we have duplication.
The Danish Govt proposed Account Response as a means of notifying the Seller Party that the Buyer had received the Invoice and would be processing it.
The Catalogue group proposed the Application Response as a generic means of notifying a party about acceptance or not (at an application level) of any documents. For example, the Seller notifying the Buyer that they have received a Request for Catalogue and would be processing it. (Is this the one that looks like a 824? - it was based on EDIFACT APERAK)
Personally I think it very confusing to have both documents.
We should be able to rationalize these and have one document that satisfies both requirements. If we agree with this, then the issue is what should it look like.
Sylvia Webb wrote:
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.
From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml...@tritorr.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:28 AM To: Tim McGrath; ubl-...@lists.oasis-open.org 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
1. I think it's confusing to have a non-tax document at that point in the process and 2. realistically, this is going to involve human intervention and a phone call / email.
M Mark Leitch
> From: Tim McGrath <tmcg...@portcomm.com.au> > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:01:16 +0800 > To: <ubl-...@lists.oasis-open.org> > 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/ > > > >
-- 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/