You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
According to the EN, BT-128 has a cardinality of 0..1.
The UBL mapping for /Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:DocumentReference is however 0..n (in the original version) and 0..1 in the Amendment. So this was clearly an inconsistency in the EN. The CII mapping was already correct in the original version,
Now that rule should be enforced in UBL, by adding a rule that ensures that no more then one cac:InvoiceLine/cac:DocumentReference elements are contained.
According to the EN, BT-128 has a cardinality of 0..1.
The UBL mapping for
/Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:DocumentReference
is however 0..n (in the original version) and0..1
in the Amendment. So this was clearly an inconsistency in the EN. The CII mapping was already correct in the original version,Now that rule should be enforced in UBL, by adding a rule that ensures that no more then one
cac:InvoiceLine/cac:DocumentReference
elements are contained.See the following example for a bad case: 253796_2012054952_DocRef.xml.txt
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: