Closed roefie64 closed 3 years ago
@roefie64 thanks a lot for this! We will analyse them and report back either here or during the next webinar of WP4, on the 29th of July.
After an analysis of the VAT XSD’s, we can conclude that there seem to be no major semantic differences between both models. Nevertheless, some additional classes/attributes can be found within the VAT XSD’s, for which we need input from the member states on whether or not they are required.
Classes/attributes with regards to mileage and odometer history.
Classes/attributes with regards to vehicle signal, i.e. the status of a vehicle or vehicle registration related circumstance or qualification, that normally emerged after registration of the vehicle. A signal/status may be temporary or definite. E.g. vehicle stolen, de-registered, exported, plates stolen, duplicate certificate, etc. For further discussion on this, see issue #16 Additional attributes for Vehicle:
Additional dates:
Definitions:
Relevant definitions that can be reused:
The last sentence raises the question whether the cardinality of vehicle owner should be changed to [0..1].
Finally, it would be useful if the usage notes refer to the Community Codes as in the Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, e.g. (D.1) = Vehicle.make.
Since no member states further commented on adding the above mentioned attributes, we will therefore leave them out of the model.
Here are the specifications and XSD's for exchanging vehicle owner/holder data used for investigating VAT fraud. It can be used to verify the vehicle registration evidence design against a pratical implementation. It does contains addresses in 2 ways: 1 as all separate fields like street, streetnumber, postcode, city and one as "Printable Address" lines. The first is used to store as structered data the second can be used for writing a letter or envelope in the right order. The same goes for the person/company name fields.
XSD-VAT.zip EUCARIS XML Message Specification VAT.pdf