Logo EDIFICAS
Jump to puce  
 
Puce Association  Association
Puce concept  Interchange concept
puce normes  Standards
puceGroupe  Working group
Puce Téléchrager  Download
PuceGlossaire  Glossary
Puce Contact  Contacts
   
UN-Cefact Forum Interim meeting Paris (France) - 28-29 April 2010 - TBG12 Report

Attending
Robert Lemense (BE), Benoît Marchal (Pineapplesoft – BE), Alain Bernard (Neuronics – BE), Michel Lesourd (EDIFICAS – FR)

FMG canceled the 15th UN-Cefact Forum due to policy and security current uncertainty in Bangkok. As a consequence this TBG12 meeting taking place in Paris is the Accounting And Audit replacement of the Forum.

L'Ordre du jour a été arrêté comme suit :
1. Spotlight on CCTS v2/v3
2. Progress on submission of messages
3. Update planning
4. Ben Hu : TBG12 messages : who is utilizing what ?
5. Election of a second vice-chair
6. Integration of « Assets » elements into Accounting Entry
7. Any other business

1. Spotlight CCTS v2/v3
As already known, CCTS v3 do not solve issues that TBG12 had to face with version 2.01; it is still not possible to restrict ASBIEs as compared to ASCCs.
On the other hand uncertainty remains on associations sequence continuity between successive versions of a same message.
Both issues concern CCMA.
Action: prepare and send a mail to ATG in order to:
a) Require ability to restrict optional ASBIEs at message assembly;
b) Check whether the sequence provided on the submission sheet is considered at assem-bly level to ensure ascending compatibility between different versions of the message.
TBG12 requests a transition plan to clarify workload caused and to define and validate a road map to be approved by the whole UN-Cefact community.

2. Progress on messages’ submission
Entry V.2: Software developers require to add a change request for cardinality ACC/ABIE “Document. Details” to be optional (0..1 instead of 1..1)

Ledger : Like all the ABIEs, the entry point of the message in the canonical data model con-tains the « package » qualifier « AAA Ledger_». The corresponding Reference ABIE in the submission sheet approved earlier by TBG17 « Accounting_ Ledger » was not removed.
TBG12 will wait for the comment of ICG to make the change in CC sheet.


3. Planning update

TBG12 Forecast

4. Ben Hu : TBG12 messages : Who is utilizing what ?
A Chinese consultant requested TBG17 information about TBG12 works. The questions have been forwarded toward TBG12. Very precise questions are considered to be asked too early. TBG12 will respond: the standardization project is still in progress. The Accounting Entry message is not more than an entry point; it is not enough to complete the accounting process. In France, some software developers have started implementation process. The ambition of the project is to gather a huge number of enterprises (accounting software suppliers as well as accounting software users) that concerns mainly (i) accounting data portability between not compatible software packages and (ii) middle and long term data archiving.

5. Election of a second vice-chair
Robert Lemense was elected the second vice-chair of TBG12 Accounting and Audit.

6. Integration of « Assets » elements into Accounting Entry

A debate demonstrated the need for a version 3 of Accounting Entry and it was approved. This version will offer addition of ACC/ABIEs relevant to management of assets (e.g. depre-ciation). The need for TBG12 to keep pace with planning of TBG/ICG/ATG/TMG groups entails the quick development of an update version of Entry.

The draft model of Accounting Entry v.3 represented below. New ACCs and ASCCs are in red color. This draft conceptual model will be proposed to the modelers team of the participat-ing countries.
Decision is pending on BCCs in blue.

Considering that an Entry is validated prior its recording into accounts, we plan to recom-mended that only invoice elements known at data capture need to be considered.
Indeed, information such as maintenance expenses, production lifetime, salvage value, etc are not necessarily known at instant of invoice data capture.
Thus the question is: do we need to foresee such BCCs?

It must be recalled that assets management chain will be defined in a separate schemata (crea-tion, change, deletion, yielding, etc). However, production of amortization / depreciation en-tries will need Accounting Entry message.
The sequence of successive steps is likely the one below

Modeling the process is not influenced by which path among (a), (b) or (c) software developer could prefer.

The agenda is complete, the meeting is adjourned.

 

© EDIFICAS Europe 2008 - Legal mentions - Contacts