Working Group Meeting

ePayment

A question regarding #757 was made: epo:resolvesReviewRequest appearing in the comments of the github issues should bcome epo:answersReviewRequest

RemittanceAdvice for ePayment was discussed. Specifically, the following UBL terms related to the RemittanceAdviceLine were discussed:

It was noted that a RemittanceAdviceLine does not require a UUID.

Payment Purpose Code: It was discussed that Ontology does not need such a codelist.

IIt was mentioned that UBL concepts 2059-2062 seen below are not needed for the Ontology

It was discussed that the epo-ord:Originator should not be part of ePayment. It will be added in the future if a suitable use-case is found.

It was discussed that all the roles should stay on the epo-pay:RemittanceAdvice level, and not on the RemitanceAdviceLine.

It was mentioned that BuyerCustomerParty is not needed, and the cardinality of a relation from the Advice to the Buyer should be 1.

It was discussed that BillingReference will be implemented for epo-pay:RemittanceAdviceLine level and epo-pay:RemittanceAdvice level, as the attribute epo-pay:hasBillingReference rdf:PlainLiteral [0..1].

epo-ord:hasAccountingCost was removed from the document and the line.

It was discussed thatExchangeRate is not currently needed for ePO. It may be added in the future if a suitable use-case is found.

#773 was discussed: It is currently on hold, because we are still awaiting an answer from Catalogue Domain experts.

#778 It was discussed: It was decided that this is not a requirement for eOrdering, and for further information the eOrdering Specialist should be consulted.

#779 was discussed: It was decided that this is not currently needed for Ontology.

Change epo:resolvesReviewRequest in #757 to epo:answersReviewRequest