[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Specifying Quotation demands in RFQ
Thanks for the quick reply. However, ... (there is always a 'but'). You're talking 2.1. I'm talking 2.0. I think that tells the story; these requirements are not present in 2.0. And yes, for government making a public RFQ to commercial businesses there is a kind of 'auction' time available in which they can make their offer and there is a separate start/end for when the offer should be standing. Cheers, Roland -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] Verzonden: zaterdag 16 april 2011 14:20 Aan: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Onderwerp: Re: [ubl-dev] Specifying Quotation demands in RFQ At 2011-04-16 08:39 +0200, Roland Hommes - Rhocon wrote: >Good morning, Welcome! >Maybe I'm missing something but it looks like the parameters for the >Quotation itself (not the items) cannot be communicated in the RFQ. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe these are found at the top-level of the request for quotation. Here is the RFQ top-level as defined in the first public review draft of UBL 2.1: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#Table_RequestForQuotation >I'm talking about the requested validity period for the Quotation I would think this is the <RequestedValidityPeriod> on row 16: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#t-RequestForQuotation-16 > and the period in which the Quote can be made. I would think this is the <SubmissionDueDate> on row 12: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#t-RequestForQuotation-12 ... though I don't see a start date for submissions, only an end date. Would you need a start date for submissions? I don't think in call cases it can be assumed to be the issue date of the RFP. >Are there UBL conformant alternatives or do I need to make my own RFQ? Hopefully not, and you'll find the committee's work either sufficient or open to your suggestions for improvement. The second public review draft for UBL 2.1 should be out shortly. >Thanks for thinking with me on this, Thank *you* for your question! I hope this helps. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]