Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Code Lists - Review of Code List 1.36 #226

Open
lambertciata opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Code Lists - Review of Code List 1.36 #226

lambertciata opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@lambertciata
Copy link
Collaborator

Code List 1.36 only has "Airline" as a role and not "Carrier" for instance. It is required to review the usage of this code list for the Roles or to assess if UNCEFACT list is a better fit.

See: https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/PartyRoleCodeList

@lambertciata
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lambertciata commented Apr 4, 2024

After a first review of the UNCEFACT Role Code List and comparison with Code List 1.36 there are:

Code List 1.36 elements --- UNCEFACT Roles

  • Airline AIR --- Carrier CA (no specific Airline identifier)
  • Airport Authority APT --- No specific to airport but Port authority POA
  • Agent AGT --- Agent AG
  • Broker BRK --- Broker or sales office BO
  • Commissionable Agent CAG --- Commissionable agent CY
  • Consignee CNE --- Consignee CN
  • Customs CTM --- Customs CM
  • Declarant DCL --- Declarant DT
  • Deconsolidator DEC --- Deconsolidator DC
  • Freight Forwarder FFW --- Freight Forwarder FW
  • Ground Handling Agent GHA --- No specific element
  • Post Office PTT --- No specific element
  • Shipper SHP --- Shipper DEQ
  • Trucker TRK --- Road Carrier GA ?

Open question: Can we find a mapping with missing elements? If not can we assess their usage?

@NiclasScheiber
Copy link
Contributor

Another possibility would be to declare in the ontology that both IATA codes and the ones provided by UNCEFACT are valid, but for an Air Waybill, the ones from IATA must be used?

@YewKong
Copy link

YewKong commented Jul 4, 2024

Should we add in one more role for 'NOTIFY PARTY'? This role is explicitly specified in FWB.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: In review
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants