|Subject:||[ubl-psc] [ubl] Re: [ubl-psc] Re: [ubl] Proposed Changelog andAction Items for PRD2 to PRD3|
|From:||Stephen Green (step...@bristol-city.gov.uk)|
|Date:||Aug 25, 2006 3:21:17 am|
I've been looking in the actions list (I didn't see a 'changelog') for mention of what you've called the 'new Legal Monetary Total' (for Invoice) and all I could find was the following (under ISS-11)
" * create "AnticipatedTotal" that has the same structure as LgealTotal but PayableAmount is optional and LineExtensionAmount is mandatory. * Order and Order Change use AnticipatedTotal and it is optional. * Order Response uses legalTotal and it is optional. * Invoice uses LegalTotal and it is mandatory (as it is already) * Quotation uses LegalTotal and it is mandatory "
Is there any documentation of the proposed Legal Monetary Total?
I think you might have misunderstood, the issue is "whether even Invoice should have PayableAmount as mandatory"
In other words, should PayableAmount in LegalTotal (or whatever the document level totals in Invoice get called) be mandatory? I say absolutely not. Your idea for the Order, etc of an anticipated total which is not necessarily the actual payable total is also more like what an invoice needs except that there are legally binding aspects of invoice totals which are not quite like what you have decided for orders, etc.
1. should invoices have a catch all mandatory amount? - i appreciate the desire to have a mandatory amount but which of the amounts that should be would differ from invoice to invoice
2. should the payable amount be mandatory? - this is the one amount which is particularly not always possible to state in some invoices
3. should there be something like payable amount which is mandatory but has different semantics? - i think this is just confusing things
4. should there be a payable amount which is optional? - i think so
The need is to have a payable amount for some instances of invoice or, in line with 3 (so here i'd advise caution that there could be confusion) there could be an anticipated payable amount but even that would be inappropriate for some invoice instances so it shouldn't be mandatory either. In short, the nature of invoice, it seems to me, is such that the specific total which is appropriate differs from instance to instance subject to strict but complex and divers rules. Trying to embody such rules into to schema, other than in a relaxed way, is likely, i think, to result in an over-engineered and often unusable (without problematic workarounds) base standard. Hence I advise not making either amount mandatory.
All the best
maybe this is just semantics.
the new Legal_MonetaryTotal in the Invoice is the legal total up to the point where circumstances dictate a change (as you say, additional allowance and charges). what we are saying is that if you have an Invoice there will be a MonetaryTotal and without any other evidence it should be considered the Legal_ MonetaryTotal.
so is it the term "legal" that concerns you or the fact it is mandatory?
if the former, then what is a better term?
if the latter, then could we ever have an invoice with no amount totals?
Stephen Green wrote:
Just to point out that there is still a significant outstanding aspect to ISS-11 which is the last bit " Indeed,I question whether even Invoice should have PayableAmount as mandatory since sometimes the PayableAmount isn't known until the invoice is being paid (there could be allowances and charges which are not known until then due to some being conditional on payment date, etc)."
This doesn't seem to me to be resolved in the disposition and could cause problems for a very large group of invoicers whose invoice payable totals are not known at the time of invoicing. This happens when, for instance, the allowance/charge is unknown at the time of invoicing (as is allowed for in the UBL 2 allowance/charge which caters for dependencies of the amount on certain conditions such as payment within a certain time. This is *very* common in invoicing.
In UK, tax rules, for instance, allow for this by ruling that certain situations of such charges do not affect the TaxTotal. But they do of course not prevent the need for a non-fixed PayableTotal.
I would see this as very difficult to fix in a minor release so it seems very pressing for UBL 2. I can't really ignore it as it impacts so much on allowance for proper invoice usage with UBL 2 and UBL 2's invoice being fit-for-purpose'
The attached spreadsheet describes the issues from PRD2 and their resolution for PRD3 together with a separate sheet indicating the actions and persons responsible.
Can those who have action items work on these over the next few days and give a progress report at the TC meetings next week.
It would also be useful to have others check we have covered everything required from the PRD2 review.
-- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160 web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath