2009-06-12
Currently the main issues identified are;
- Package view vs Product view - this is a stated objective to ensure the model caters for both messages that have Package line items or Product Line items - or both. In the Business Requirements List (5.2.2.1) of the Despatch Advice, Hierarchy is a superset of Trade Line Item "By these means it is possible to differentiate between package driven transactions and product driven transactions as well as inner-to-outer or outer-to-inner package logic". This also caters for Packages in Packages i.e "parent" packages.
- The main parties indentified are the Ship-To and Ship-From. The Business Requirements Listadds in additional parties. Do we need to amend this and cater for the scenario where the Goods owner/manufacturer actually transmits the Despatch Advice and the Ship-From (3rd party logistics provider) simply notifies the Goods Owner manually?
TDED/UNCL 4343
New qDT required
Mapped to new BCC Ownership Status Code
New qDT required - 2 codes 66 & 67 from 4183
(2 alpha positions).
Transaction hierarchy is used to identify the hierarchical structure of components in the transaction. In EDIFACT, the segment group triggered with CPS is used for that.
By these means it is possible to differentiate between package driven transactions and product driven transactions as well as inner-to-outer or outer-to-inner package logic. All these different ways are implemented in the industry
These are 2 different BBIEs
Is this requested? Add a new ASBIE to Ultimate Customer_ Delivery Event?
Several discharge locations for partial quantities of that product.
Map to delivery location