Error in Test UBL-SR-43 / UBL-CR-665/666/673 for CreditNote

[AndreasPvd]

In case of a CreditNote it assumes the cbc:DocumentTypeCode="50" . According to CEN/TS 16931-3-2:2020 for a CreditNote the DocumentTypeCode for BT-18 in a CreditNote should be "ATS" and not "50".

[phax]

As the DocumentType code follows UNECE 1001, it cannot be ATS therefore I assume it is a bug in the specification:

https://service.unece.org/trade/untdid/d16b/tred/tred1001.htm

[AndreasPvd]

Thanks for clarification @phax.

1. Could you please point out to the UBL 2.1 documentation where the use of that codelist is defined? I am currently unable to find any associated code list with that element from the documentation.
2. If 1001 is the reason, why not use 130 for both? A price tender (code 50) seems not very useful to point to an invoiced object.

[MartinForsberg-Ecru]

@AndreasPvd I only have CEN/TS 16931-3-2:2021 (not 2020) at hand, and for BT-11, Project Reference, it doesn't say anything about ATS as qualifier. Actually, I can't see that it specifies any code (though 50 has been used since start in the schematrons). However, there seems the spec has an error in the example for BT-18 (Invoiced Object) where it says ATS in the cbc:DocumentType, it should have been 130 in cbc:DocumentTypeCode. To really confuse things, the examples are using the element cbc:DocumentType for textual description of document references, but there is no syntax binding to cbc:DocumentType, only cbc:DocumentDescription.

[MartinForsberg-Ecru]

130 is for Invoice Object (BT-18)
50 is for Project Reference (BT-11)

[AndreasPvd]

@MartinForsberg-Ecru

• is :2021 your national translation or the original English version? In German language I have a 2021 version as well, which is the translation of the English 2020 version.
• 50 for Project Reference. Agreed. But BT-11 does not allow an additional scheme identifier. So UBL-SR-32 would be wrong in that case as well. Nevertheless, the text of SR-32 only talks about BT-18 and not BT-11.
• You are right, the document is not consistent. The examples do not match the tables. Please have a look at Table 5 (normative!) in the row with BT-18. Here it clearly states to use ATS for BT-18

[MartinForsberg-Ecru]

I'm using the English version (there is not Swedish translation)

True, BT-11 (Project reference) should not have a schemeID. The rule is phrased incorrectly.

And for BT-11, you are correct, the syntax binding for CreditNote says ATS. What a mess.

[phax]

Ah BT-11 and not BT-18??
I saw it at BT-18:

[AndreasPvd]

I was never talking about BT-11 ;)

[AndreasPvd]

UBL-CR-665, UBL-CR-666, and UBL-CR-673 need to be addressed as well. UBL-CR-665, UBL-CR-666, UBL-CR-673, and UBL-SR-43 do not match because of the same reasons described above.

[phax]

Note: BT-11 is for CreditNotes and also maps to /CreditNote/cac:AdditionalDocumentReference/cbc:ID
So AdditionalDocumentReference/ID is relevant for BT-11, BT-18 and BT-122 :)