As e.g. in https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/profiles/36-mlr/#_semantic_datatypes

We need these data types for EUR:

• Primitive types:
  • Date
  • String
• Semantic data types:
  • Identifier
  • Date

The reference to the 10. GA makes no sense

Please add at least the Internal Regulations - Erwin can give you the permanent link

The Currency Code List ISO 4217 is not needed for BIS EUR

Only onw of the terms is correct.
@jerouris to my knowledge it is "Peppol Coordinating Authority" - right?

Found e.g. in chapter 3.2.1

An official reference to the IR document would be good.
Source: chapter 3

The policy on reporting is stated in Internal Regulations for Use of the Peppol Network.

See e.g. https://docs.peppol.eu/edelivery/as4/specification/#_references for how References could look like

Based on #24

of type IDType should be present

• The text itself reads poorly - maybe because the formatting is not as expected?
• The text describes 4 numbers, but the image has 7 numbers
• Should the image be labeled with "Source: Internal Regulations"?
• Should we rebuild the table in AsciiDoc so that it is easier for users to copy-paste from it?
• Below the table is an unresolved reference please see {common}

Edit: See also #11

Imho the contents of http://localhost:8000/eur/end_user_reporting/syntax/xd-EndUserReport/ are invalid.

The Child Elements should only contain Header and EndUser because they are direct children of the root element.
The other elements are nested children and should imho not occur here.

@jerouris wasn't that just added by MLR, because it is part of the "Upgrade" project?
If this shoud be removed, please assign to PN

Currently it reads:

how SPs are to submit reports on their End Users and statistical reports on transactions to the Peppol Coordinating Authority.

Imho the "statistical reports" should be removed

To my understanding, the BIS targets only the transmission from SPs to OpenPeppol, but NOT what OpenPeppol does with the data.
Hence, I would move Peppol Authority (PA) from "in scope" to "out of scope" in Chapter 1

Edit: except the "Peppol Coordinating Authority" which I guess could be considered "in scope"

The title End UserReporting is missing a blank after User. It should be End User Reporting

Chapter 4.2.1, Point 2 mentions:

Report this data in accordance with the Peppol End User Report specification.

I suggest to change this to:

Report this data in accordance with this specification.

Edit: Point 4 also mentions:

Transmit the Peppol End User Report BIS to the Peppol Coordinating Authority in accordance with the Peppol End User Report specification.

I suggest to change this to:

Transmit the Peppol End User Report BIS to the Peppol Coordinating Authority in accordance with this specification.

Edit 2: this is the follow up of #12

In the early versions, we had a discussion if the ReportPeppolStage is needed or not.
If I remember correctly, it wasn't needed, so I suggest to remove it from the XSD?

Like #34 the same applies to the LegalID element of the "End User" and the "Intermediary".
As the schemes may not be in one of our code lists, I suggest to remove the "Scheme ID" from the semantic code model, and leave it only in the syntactical code model. Alternatively we need to a define a Code List to be used.

The link behind Non-compliance Operational Procedure should imho go in the "References" chapter

The "Statement of copyright" in chapter 3.1 seems to have been copied from PINT.
The reference to CEN / EN is not needed for the reporting

Bullet point 2 in chapter 4.2.3 mentions "data sheets" - this is a new term and I don't know what that is.
I sugges to remove "and data sheets".

The text This {peppol} Reporting feels wrong :)
Same for for implementing a {peppol} business soon afterwards

Once XSD and rules are ready
@jerouris

The images are effectively the same.

The EUR BIS contains a version - is that smart?
Woudln't that fit better in the second line currenty called "draft"?

The chapter is on "End User Reporting" but the table is on "Transaction Statistics".

See #10 and #11

The value of the ReporterID element is supposed to be a value like POP000306 without a Scheme ID.

I would therefore suggest to remove IBT-060-1 from the Semantic data model

Chapter 3.1. reads

The purpose of this document is to describe the use of the End User Reporting and Transaction statistics messages in Peppol, and to facilitate an efficient implementation.

=> The Transaction statistics is not contained in here

I suggest to add that

• Prompting will be done by email and not by eDelivery
• Define that in due time is supposed to be 5 days, giving it a total of 15 days

See

I suggest move the bullet points

Prompting will be done by email and not by eDelivery
Define that in due time is supposed to be 5 days, giving it a total of 15 days (+ Image)

Below outer bullet point 2.

The introduction text is contained twice - I can't find the sense in that

Edit: I suggest to remove 4.1 and make 4.1.1 the new 4.1

See e.g. https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/profiles/63-invoiceresponse/#invoice-response-process-rules

The list of Business Rules (the agreed version of the Excel I sent you) should be part of the BIS: 2022-01-14 Peppol Reporting Requirements Draft.xlsx

Please add .idea/ to the .gitignore file and remove the committed files

Once rules are finalized

@jerouris

The introduction in chapter 3 should be more focuses on EUR and not so much on TS. Instead of

This operational procedure will explain and outline the operational procedures for each of these reporting areas.

I suggest

This operational procedure will explain and outline the operational procedures for the End User Reporting.

Edit: de facto the same is in chapter 4.1:

This operational procedure will explain and outline the operational procedures for each of these reporting areas.

I think the phrasing

The document is concerned with clarifying requirements for ensuring interoperability of pan-European Public eProcurement and provides guidelines for the support and implementation of these requirements.

is too narrow, as Peppol is already international and the Reporting is not specific to eProcurement.

I suggest to remove the first full paragraph.

Edit: Additionally, the phrase

regarding the billing process based on these formats.

is simply wrong :) Long live copy-paste

The line "Out of scope:" should imho not be bold

This is the first time, that the term "Peppol Reporting Platform" pops up.

I suggest to change

This check will be triggered inside the Peppol Reporting Platform.

to

This check will be triggered automatically.

Feel free to consult with JD or EW on this

Chapter 4.2.1 mentions

Ensure all data for a month is reported within 10 business days following the end of the month.

According to the architecture design, we stated within 10 calendar days instead

Or are the Business days stated somewhere else?

I can't find the resources folder in src\eur\trn-end_user_reporting

As e.g. in https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/profiles/36-mlr/#descriptions

We need to describe the XSD and explain each of the elements and what their semantics is.

The description should be different :)

Unter http://localhost:8000/eur/end_user_reporting/rule/ the Japanese PINT rules are still visible:

Last bullet point in chapter 4.2.2 references this document

See e.g. https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/profiles/36-mlr/#_peppol_identifiers

This chapter is needed.

@jerouris we need to agree on the Customization ID and the Process ID

My proposal for the EUR Customization ID is urn:fdc:peppol.eu:oo:trns:end-user-report:1

My proposal for the EUR Process ID is urn:fdc:peppol.eu:oo:bis:reporting:1

This is the old one

When referring to the Organization, always use OpenPeppol and not OpenPEPPOL

When referring to the network, always use Pppol and not PEPPOL. The only correct version of using PEPPOL is when referring to the EU project from 2008 to 2012

See e.g. https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/upgrade-3/profiles/36-mlr/#codelist

The code lists we need in EUR are:

• Mandatory code lists:

  • Country codes (ISO 3166-1, Alpha 2)

• Optional code lists (warnings only):

  • OpenPeppol eDEC Document Type Identifiers
  • OpenPeppol eDEC Participant Identifier Schemes

Chapter 4.2.2. e.g. uses non-compliance and Non-compliance - we should have a consistent guide on how we do casing of the special terms (also e.g. Access Point etc.)

@jerouris you have the most experience, so please decide

Chapter 4.2.1 states

Report this data in accordance with the Peppol End User Report specification.

Isn't the "BIS" we're creating the "Peppol End User Report specification"????

If so, I suggest to rephrase

Edit: this effects bullet points 2 and 4

• BASIC-00001 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00002 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00003 in my XSD there is no element Dataset. There is only SendingDatasetID and RecevingDatasetID and the cardinalities are already enforced by the XSD. No need to repeat
• BASIC-00004 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00005 please do not enforce the existance of "container elements" like "Intermediaries" - that just bloats XML and makes the data model more complex to handle. It's a waste of bandwidth :) Additionally the Intermediaries should have a link to the respective End Users in my understanding.
• BASIC-00006 I don't get this rule. Shouldn't we test for count(@xsi:*) = 0??? And even that fails, if xsi:schemaLocation is used in the root element (and you can't prohibit this one). Why would you only want to allow xsi: attributes in the root element?
• BASIC-00007 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00008 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00009 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00010 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00011 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00012 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00013 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00014 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00015 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00016 is already questioned n #34
• BASIC-00017 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00018 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00019 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00020 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00021 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00022 is already questioned n #35
• BASIC-00023 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• BASIC-00024 is already enforced by XML Schema - no need to repeat
• The context xd:EndUserReport/xd:Dataset should not exist. Because the data sets should only be in relation to a specific End User

and so on and so forth.
I strongly object against creating Schematron rules out of all these "Basic rules"

Currently, the Intro headline reads

Peppol Model for Reporting

Wouldn't this be better:

Peppol Model for End User Reporting

?

The intro reads

This document sets out the processes and procedures for reporting data in the Peppol environment.

I suggest to change it to

This document sets out the processes and procedures for reporting End User data in the Peppol environment.

Edit:
Additionally the "This includes:" in the next line looks a bit "alone". The context for "This" is missing