Re: EU Directive towards giving EU public procurement a new Standard for e-invoices

[Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Of course, I always did hope that one day UBL TC might produce an
Invoice with just the 'core' in and nothing else - 'CoreInvoice' or
the like. The subset concept was always a concessionary second-best in
my own mind but I felt it was the only thing likely to get traction
other than just going with the flow and allowing invoices to be huge
and all-encompassing. If there were a CoreInvoice document defined by
the TC along the lines of the EU core it would be great (once
standardised) for the EU acceptable syntax list - albeit that's a
risky thing to say - there's no guarantee of any kind it would ever be
accepted onto such a list, I guess. Wouldn't it solve a lot of
problems though. Doesn't solve the problem of taxes being different
around the world for outside of EU though. Maybe a concession towards
a more 'universal' document appropriate to UBL would be to add the
extra tax entities such as are now in UBL 2.x, but little if anything
more than that I would hope.
----

Stephen D Green

----
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with all your mind.



On 24 March 2014 15:25, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again UBL-Dev,
>
> Related to last comments, if anyone is looking at the new Directive
> for the EU for e-invoices, text approved by The EU Parliament here
> [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0198]
> I get the impression UBL 1.0 Invoice might just fit but not sure about
> UBL 2.x Invoice because of several entities having a possible affect
> on invoice total calculations, etc, which are outside of what EU want
> to call 'core'. Anyone know what I mean?
>
> When UBL TC was working on UBL 1.0 Invoice I had some influence and I
> was being charged by my public sector colleagues with keeping it
> possible to have a core in the invoice such that other entities
> outside the core could feasibly be ignored. As such we didn't have
> much (if anything) outside the core which would affect core
> calculations (taking a typical view of what such a core would be from
> experience handling paper invoices). In UBL 2 there was a lot added
> and I was not so much involved but I didn't know whether the 'core'
> idea was getting any traction anyway, so maybe the 'core' idea with
> ability to ignore non-core entities and still have an invoice which is
> acceptable got broken. Now the EU seems to me to want to standardise
> this type of 'core' architecture and maybe UBL 2.x doesn't fit. I
> think it's a 'core' idea like the above - it mentions in arcticle 6
> "The core elements of an electronic invoice are, inter alia:..." and
> that 'inter alia', together with other documentation I've seen about
> it, suggests the idea that the invoice can have other elements present
> besides the core but the invoice is accepted because the core is
> present and adheres to the Standard semantics. That last part is where
> things might go wrong - the semantics might ignore anything except the
> core when it comes to the calculations of totals, etc. This gives, I
> think, UBL 1.0 Invoice the advantage over UBL 2.x Invoice in that it
> has much less that might fall outside the core but might affect
> calculations. Does that makes sense?
>
> ----
> Stephen D Green