[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (UBL-50) Can we use the DigitalCapability document as TPA ?
[ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-50?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=63953#comment-63953 ] Tim McGrath commented on UBL-50: -------------------------------- As the DigitalAgreement defines the process but not the role of the parties it does not make sense to say Sender and Receiver. The process may have a Party be both. ParticipantParty makes more sense and having it 1..n supports it being used multilaterally but then we also need a Party to define the governing body (e.g. OpenPEPPOL, EESPA, etc..). So maybe we should add GoverningParty (0..1) to this as well? > Can we use the DigitalCapability document as TPA ? > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: UBL-50 > URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/UBL-50 > Project: OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Documents and business objects > Reporter: Roberto Cisternino > Assignee: Roberto Cisternino > Priority: Minor > Labels: DigitalCapability, TPA > > I found the DigitalCapability document is quite close to a TPA (Trading Partner Agreeement) or more precisely to an e-TPA. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2.2#6258)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]