|Sylvia Webb||Nov 27, 2005 8:04 pm|
|Subject:||RE: [ubl-psc] SV: UBL 2.0 draft 10 generated spreadsheets with schema and EDIFI X model|
|From:||Sylvia Webb (swe...@gefeg.com)|
|Date:||Nov 27, 2005 8:04:10 pm|
WRT your comment "Finally, it appears these spreadsheets are those generated by EDIFIX. We cannot maintain this edition of the spreadsheets. They do not have any of the naming formulae or comments in it. All we can use this edition for is checking against the original draft 10 spreadsheets to ensure they match. This cannot be the source edition."
EDIFIX is capable of producing spreadsheets with formulas and comments. The ball is in your court to provide templates with CORRECT formulas and a description of the comments you feel are missing if you want to see these included in EDIFIX generated spreadsheets.
As I recall, there was extensive discussion during preparation of UBL 1.0 about the current spreadsheet formulas being incorrect.
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcg...@portcomm.com.au] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:36 AM To: Peter Larsen Borresen Cc: 'ubl-...@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] SV: UBL 2.0 draft 10 generated spreadsheets with schema and EDIFI X model
Peter, well done, this is getting close.
Some remaining issues I can see are...
In the Common Library: * There seems to be several rows with no UBL Name or Dictionary Entry Name, eg. rows 56 , 59, 60, 93, 144 * ItemInstance has all BBIEs as mandatory - only the ProductTraceID should be. This seems to be carried over from version 9. * Item has Additional Information as Text (it was actually Identifier type) but I have a note that we were going to make this an association to something called 'Attachment'. * We never use 'Person'. Didn't we talk about this being associated with Party (assembled as a child with 0..1 cardinality)? * In the common library the column "Context: Business Process" should be blank for all entries.
In the Procurement Library: * There seems to be several rows with no UBL Name or Dictionary Entry Name, eg. rows 21,22,23,24, 78, 86 * Account Response Line is now redundant and should be removed. * Some text BIEs are 0..n and some 0..1. We still need to decide how to handle multi-language text. I think we should keep those originally identified as 0..n until we decide if and how to create qualified data types for this. * BasePrice. PriceType. Text (row 33) should be a Code type. * BillingDocument has some dodgy Dictionary Entry Names. Some have Credited Document and Credited Document. Self Billed Invoice Invoice_ Document Reference has two "Invoices" in the qualifier??? * On row 86 (CatalogueItem) the associated ABIE is ItemLocationQuantity not LocationQuantity * I suspect rows 88 to 96 are Catalogue Reference but it needs a lot of work on it. * Classification Category. Code. Code (row 99) should be Classification Category. Code Value. Text * Row 181 and 182 looks like it is supposed to be Despatch Note Line but it has only one (optional) BBIE , a GUID. is that correct? where is it used? I suspect it is supposed to be in Despatch Line. The GUID that was in there is now missing. * Row 267 (ToBePaidTotalAmount) is missing a version number (2.0) * Row 270 and 271. we changed the names of these from Buyers ID to ID and Sellers ID to Sales Order ID, so they should be given version 2.0. * Row 293 Line Reference: wherever we change any BBIE then the version number of the ABIE goes up to match it. So Line Reference should be version 2.0 becasue we added a GUID. * Row 298 (LotIdentification) should also be version 2.0 because we added an ASBIE (AdditionalItemProperty), * Row 315 The ASBIE for OrderLine.QuoteLineReference seems to have a Dictonary Entry Name of Order Line Reference. Order Reference ?? * Rows 316, 317, 318 - these should be version 2.0 (as per rows 270 and 271) * Rows 385 and 386 - Line Item and Seller Proposed Line Item have no names and no version number. * Row 531 - Trading Terms. Information. Text is mandatory (cardinality of 1..n) * Row 532 - Trading Terms. Reference. Text is an Identifier (like a URI) So it should be Trading Terms. Reference. Identifier * Row 553 and 555 seem to have got qualified names despite no qualifiers???
Also, (as you will see) i have starting building the UML models for version 10 and this helps identify more clearly which ABIEs belong in Common and which in Procurement (because we can see the tree of dependencies). Therefore have a look at the attached diagrams and shuffle the ABIEs into their appropriate homes. That is, put the common stuff in Common Library and the rest in Procurement.
Finally, it appears these spreadsheets are those generated by EDIFIX. We cannot maintain this edition of the speadsheets. They do not have any of the naming formulae or comments in it. All we can use this edition for is checking against the original draft 10 spreadsheets to ensure they match. This cannot be the source edition.
Make sure you are editing the hand made spreadsheets for version 11 (that is, not these ones).
Peter Larsen Borresen wrote:
Here is a version of the model spreadsheets with schemas and a EDIFIX model (for Betty) . I have added Attachment to Document reference, but not digital signature. We need to disguss which documents that need digital signatures.
I begin to see light in the end of the tunnel.
-- 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/