CEN/TR 16931-6:2017
(Main)Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of EN 16931-1 with respect to its practical application for an end user
Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of EN 16931-1 with respect to its practical application for an end user
0.1 Introduction
Directive 2014/55/EU states the following: "The standard shall be tested as to its practical application for an end user. The Commission shall retain overall responsibility for the testing and shall ensure that, during the performance of the test, special account be taken of the respect for the criteria of practicality, user-friendliness and possible implementation costs in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1.
0.2 In scope
This CEN Technical Report describes the methodology used for testing at a semantic level and at the syntax level, as well as describing the semantic testing, the syntax testing and testing of the validation artefacts that represent EN 16931-1 and the test results. The testing of the validation artefacts will ensure they can be used to automatically check conformance with EN 16931-1.
0.3 Out of scope
During meetings with the European Commission they agreed to supplement the testing activities as the need arises. This included the provision of a hosted GITB (Global eBusiness Interoperability Test Beds) environment for syntax testing and to run separate studies such as assessment of implementation costs. The results of these studies will be published separately by CEF.
It was agreed at earlier meetings that piloting was out of scope i.e. perform live transactions, because resources were unavailable to undertake this in the time allowed. Instead we could simulate scenarios by leveraging on the experience of our experts.
Working Group 3 (hereafter WG3) in CEN/TC 434 has produced the syntax bindings and validation artefacts, and the task of quality assurance of these deliverables has been the responsibility of WG3.
VAT issues are complex and require juridical or legal expertise. VAT is also sometimes very sectoral or even country specific. Certain sections, in the VAT Directive, apply to all trades, others deal with special cases. The model should facilitate, but cannot be seen as an enforcement model. Therefore, VAT compliance would have to be checked on a case by case basis, and is deemed out of scope. The Commission had taken this up and given the draft to their VAT experts. The result was that no issues were discovered.
Article 226(B) of the VAT Directive [2] describes the simplified invoice. There are significantly fewer requirements for this invoice. It can only be used when the value is below a specific total amount. The requirement is to provide a model for low value purchases such as train tickets, receipts etc. The key difference is that it doesn’t require the Buyer to be identified. Due to limited resources the simplified invoice requirements were not checked and so are being considered as an extension to be developed at a future stage.
The changing between form and format was discussed. It was generally agreed, based on the VAT Directive, that an eInvoice cannot change form i.e. transformed to paper, however it can change format i.e. syntax. This is common in EDI systems and for legal reasons the original needs to be clarified. This means if it is in paper form it shall be archived in paper form and if it is electronic it shall stay in electronic form. An electronic invoice may change format, provided this is documented in an audit trail. However, in Norway and France the legislation states that the format received from the Supplier is the original and no other. Also, general practice in Germany requires that the invoice received from the Supplier be archived and considered as the original. There may be other exceptions in some Member States. This was also considered to be out of scope for this document and would be dealt with by the Member State involved.
It was agreed at an initial Plenary session that we should test all four syntaxes as the decision to select syntaxes had not yet been made. However ultimately the group concluded, based on our research, that the ISO 20022 Financial Invoice was not in sufficient use to justify being included.
Elektronische Rechnungsstellung - Ergebnis der Prüfung der EN 16931-1 auf ihre praktische Anwendbarkeit durch einen Endnutzer
Facturation électronique - Résultat de l'essai portant sur la Norme européenne concernant sa mise en application pratique pour un utilisateur final
Elektronsko izdajanje računov - 6. del: Rezultat preskusa po EN 16931-1 glede praktične uporabe za končnega uporabnika
To tehnično poročilo določa rezultat preskusa iz evropskega standarda o semantičnem podatkovnem modelu za ključne elemente elektronskega računa. Preskus se osredotoča na praktično uporabo za končnega uporabnika.
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-januar-2018
Elektronsko izdajanje računov - 6. del: Rezultat preskusa po EN 16931-1 glede
praktične uporabe za končnega uporabnika
Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of EN 16931-1 with respect to its practical
application for an end user
Elektronische Rechnungsstellung - Ergebnis der Prüfung der EN 16931-1 auf ihre
praktische Anwendbarkeit durch einen Endnutzer
Facturation électronique - Résultat de l'essai portant sur la Norme européenne
concernant sa mise en application pratique pour un utilisateur final
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 16931-6:2017
ICS:
03.100.20 Trgovina. Komercialna Trade. Commercial function.
dejavnost. Trženje Marketing
35.240.63 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in trade
trgovini
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
CEN/TR 16931-6
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
October 2017
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
ICS 35.240.20; 35.240.63
English Version
Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of EN
16931-1 with respect to its practical application for an end
user
Facturation électronique - Résultat de l'essai portant Elektronische Rechnungsstellung - Ergebnis der
sur la Norme européenne concernant sa mise en Prüfung der EN 16931-1 auf ihre praktische
application pratique pour un utilisateur final Anwendbarkeit durch einen Endnutzer
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 15 October 2017. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 434.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2017 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 5
0 Introduction . 6
0.1 Summary . 6
0.2 Requirements for testing derived from European legislation . 6
1 Scope . 7
1.1 Introduction . 7
1.2 In scope . 7
1.3 Out of scope . 7
2 Normative references . 8
3 Terms and definitions . 8
4 Testing . 8
4.1 General. 8
4.2 Semantic testing . 9
4.2.1 Introduction . 9
4.2.2 The standardization request and specific requirements . 9
4.2.3 The Semantic testing of real instances . 14
4.2.4 Findings and recommendations . 14
4.2.5 Conclusion of semantic testing . 15
4.3 Syntax testing . 15
5 Generating invoice instances . 16
5.1 Requirements . 16
5.2 Generating Instances . 16
5.2.1 Methodology . 16
5.2.2 Generating invoice instances . 17
5.2.3 Error-free instance . 17
5.2.4 Pushing errors in instance . 17
6 Validation of invoice instances . 18
6.1 General. 18
6.2 Validation of UBL instances. 18
6.2.1 Test instances and preparation . 18
6.2.2 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 18
6.2.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking errors . 18
6.2.4 Test tools used . 19
6.2.5 Test procedure . 19
6.2.6 Test results . 19
6.3 Validation of CII instances . 19
6.3.1 Test instances and preparation . 19
6.3.2 Instances as provided by CEN/TC 434 . 20
6.3.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking single errors (BR and SR) . 20
6.3.4 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 20
6.3.5 Test tools used . 20
6.3.6 Test procedure . 20
6.3.7 Test results . 21
6.4 Validation of EDIFACT instances . 21
6.4.1 Test instances and preparation . 21
6.4.2 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 21
6.4.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking single errors (BR and SR) . 21
6.4.4 Test tools used . 22
6.4.5 Test procedure . 22
6.4.6 Test results. 22
7 Transmission . 22
7.1 Methodology . 22
7.2 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for UBL syntax and PEPPOL AS2 protocol . 23
7.2.1 Overview . 23
7.2.2 Actors . 23
7.2.3 Test Scenario . 24
7.3 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for EDIFACT syntax and OFTP2 protocol . 26
7.3.1 Overview . 26
7.3.2 Actors . 26
7.3.3 Standards and Specifications . 26
7.3.4 Test Scenario . 27
7.3.5 An example execution of a test case . 27
7.4 Test results. 30
8 Presentation and visualization of instances . 30
8.1 General . 30
8.2 Requirements . 30
8.3 Test methodology applied . 31
8.3.1 Process. 31
8.3.2 Overview of representation methods and tools . 31
8.3.3 Examples for XML based instance representations . 31
8.3.4 Microsoft Excel interpretation of an XML instance . 33
8.3.5 Visualizations in ERP systems . 33
8.3.6 XSL Transformation – Example Transformation XML to HTML . 34
9 Payment . 37
9.1 Requirements . 37
9.2 Automatic processing for invoice to SEPA payment reconciliation . 38
9.3 Test Methodology Applied . 39
9.3.1 Methodology . 39
9.3.
...
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-januar-2018
(OHNWURQVNRL]GDMDQMHUDþXQRYGHO 5H]XOWDWSUHVNXVDSR(1 JOHGH
SUDNWLþQHXSRUDEH]DNRQþQHJDXSRUDEQLND
(OHFWURQLFLQYRLFLQJ3DUW 5HVXOWRIWKHWHVWRI(1 ZLWKUHVSHFWWRLWVSUDFWLFDO
DSSOLFDWLRQIRUDQHQGXVHU
Elektronische Rechnungsstellung - Ergebnis der Prüfung der EN 16931-1 auf ihre
praktische Anwendbarkeit durch einen Endnutzer
Facturation électronique - Résultat de l'essai portant sur la Norme européenne
concernant sa mise en application pratique pour un utilisateur final
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 16931-6:2017
ICS:
35.240.63 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in trade
trgovini
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
CEN/TR 16931-6
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
October 2017
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
ICS 35.240.20; 35.240.63
English Version
Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of EN
16931-1 with respect to its practical application for an end
user
Facturation électronique - Résultat de l'essai portant Elektronische Rechnungsstellung - Ergebnis der
sur la Norme européenne concernant sa mise en Prüfung der EN 16931-1 auf ihre praktische
application pratique pour un utilisateur final Anwendbarkeit durch einen Endnutzer
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 15 October 2017. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 434.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2017 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 5
0 Introduction . 6
0.1 Summary . 6
0.2 Requirements for testing derived from European legislation . 6
1 Scope . 7
1.1 Introduction . 7
1.2 In scope . 7
1.3 Out of scope . 7
2 Normative references . 8
3 Terms and definitions . 8
4 Testing . 8
4.1 General. 8
4.2 Semantic testing . 9
4.2.1 Introduction . 9
4.2.2 The standardization request and specific requirements . 9
4.2.3 The Semantic testing of real instances . 14
4.2.4 Findings and recommendations . 14
4.2.5 Conclusion of semantic testing . 15
4.3 Syntax testing . 15
5 Generating invoice instances . 16
5.1 Requirements . 16
5.2 Generating Instances . 16
5.2.1 Methodology . 16
5.2.2 Generating invoice instances . 17
5.2.3 Error-free instance . 17
5.2.4 Pushing errors in instance . 17
6 Validation of invoice instances . 18
6.1 General. 18
6.2 Validation of UBL instances. 18
6.2.1 Test instances and preparation . 18
6.2.2 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 18
6.2.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking errors . 18
6.2.4 Test tools used . 19
6.2.5 Test procedure . 19
6.2.6 Test results . 19
6.3 Validation of CII instances . 19
6.3.1 Test instances and preparation . 19
6.3.2 Instances as provided by CEN/TC 434 . 20
6.3.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking single errors (BR and SR) . 20
6.3.4 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 20
6.3.5 Test tools used . 20
6.3.6 Test procedure . 20
6.3.7 Test results . 21
6.4 Validation of EDIFACT instances . 21
6.4.1 Test instances and preparation . 21
6.4.2 Adjustments of provided “real-world” sample files . 21
6.4.3 Creation of manipulated instances provoking single errors (BR and SR) . 21
6.4.4 Test tools used . 22
6.4.5 Test procedure . 22
6.4.6 Test results. 22
7 Transmission . 22
7.1 Methodology . 22
7.2 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for UBL syntax and PEPPOL AS2 protocol . 23
7.2.1 Overview . 23
7.2.2 Actors . 23
7.2.3 Test Scenario . 24
7.3 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for EDIFACT syntax and OFTP2 protocol . 26
7.3.1 Overview . 26
7.3.2 Actors . 26
7.3.3 Standards and Specifications . 26
7.3.4 Test Scenario . 27
7.3.5 An example execution of a test case . 27
7.4 Test results. 30
8 Presentation and visualization of instances . 30
8.1 General . 30
8.2 Requirements . 30
8.3 Test methodology applied . 31
8.3.1 Process. 31
8.3.2 Overview of representation methods and tools . 31
8.3.3 Examples for XML based instance representations . 31
8.3.4 Microsoft Excel interpretation of an XML instance . 33
8.3.5 Visualizations in ERP systems . 33
8.3.6 XSL Transformation – Example Transformation XML to HTML . 34
9 Payment . 37
9.1 Requirements . 37
9.2 Automatic processing for invoice to SEPA payment reconciliation . 38
9.3 Test Methodology Applied . 39
9.3.1 Methodology . 39
9.3.2 Caveats .
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.