SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
(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
This Technical Report specifies the result of the test of the European standard on the semantic data model for the core elements of an electronic invoice. The test focusses on 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
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
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
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
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
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.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
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
2
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
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 . 40
9.4 Test Execution . 40
9.4.1 Semantic Model . 40
9.5 Test Results . 46
9.5.1 Semantic Model . 46
9.5.2 Traceability and Automated Reconciliation . 47
10 Automatic processing . 47
10.1 Requirements . 47
10.2 Testing . 48
10.3 Test results. 48
11 Conclusions . 49
Annex A (informative) WG6 Comment resolution on Semantic model . 50
Annex B (informative) List of visualization systems. 58
Annex C (informative) What is GITB? . 59
C.1 Introduction . 59
3
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
C.2 The GITB Testing Framework . 59
C.2.1 GITB Methodology . 59
C.2.2 GITB Architecture . 60
C.3 Implementation Specifications and Proof-of-Concept . 60
C.3.1 Implementation Specifications . 60
C.3.2 Prototype Test Registry and Repository . 61
C.4 Validation and transmission testing . 61
C.4.1 What to Test? . 61
C.4.2 How to Test?. 61
C.4.3 Test Suite, Test Case and Messaging Adapters . 63
C.5 CEN/TC 434 usage of GITB and Test Cases . 65
C.5.1 Overview . 65
C.5.2 Standalone Document Validation Test Cases for the Invoice Providers . 66
C.6 Test execution . 68
C.6.1 General. 68
C.6.2 Standalone Document Validation through the GITB website . 68
C.6.3 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for UBL syntax and PEPPOL AS2 protocol . 75
C.6.4 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for EDIFACT syntax and OFTP2 protocol . 81
C.6.5 OFTP2 Message Validation . 82
Bibliography . 84
4
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 16931-6:2017) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 434
“Electronic invoicing”, the secretariat of which is held by NEN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent
rights.
This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the
European Free Trade Association.
This document is part of a set of documents, consisting of:
• EN 16931-1:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 1: Semantic data model of the core elements of an
electronic invoice
• CEN/TS 16931-2:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 2: List of syntaxes that comply with EN 16931-1
• CEN/TS 16931-3-1:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 1: Methodology for syntax bindings of the
core elements of an electronic invoice
• CEN/TS 16931-3-2:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 2: Syntax binding for ISO/IEC 19845 (UBL
2.1) invoice and credit note
• CEN/TS 16931-3-3:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 3: Syntax binding for UN/CEFACT XML
Cross Industry Invoice D16B
• CEN/TS 16931-3-4:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 4: Syntax binding for UN/EDIFACT INVOIC
D16B
• CEN/TR 16931-4:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 4: Guidelines on interoperability of electronic
invoices at the transmission level
• CEN/TR 16931-5:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 5: Guidelines on the use of sector or country
extensions in conjunction with EN 16931-1, methodology to be applied in the real environment
• CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of the European standard
with respect to its practical application for an end user
5
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
0 Introduction
0.1 Summary
The Technical Report contains the results of the testing. In summary, it should demonstrate that
EN 16931-1 and its related specifications, particularly the syntax bindings, is fit for purpose.
The report has three main sections, one for the semantic testing where an overview of the methodology,
the testing and the results are described (Clause 4). The second section (Clauses 5 to 8) is the syntax
testing, and this is split in different subchapters to test all the steps needed to create and send an
invoice instance. The final section (Clauses 9 to 10) describes the tests performed to ensure the EN is
suitable for automatic processing. This section has two sub chapters, one for payments and one for
automatic processing in general.
0.2 Requirements for testing derived from European legislation
Article 3 of Directive 2014/55/EU [1] states that:
“The Commission shall request that the relevant European standardisation organisation draft a
European standard for the semantic data model of the core elements of an electronic invoice (the
‘European standard on electronic invoicing’).
The Commission shall require that the European standard on electronic invoicing complies at least with
the following criteria:
— it is technologically neutral,
— it is compatible with relevant international standards on electronic invoicing,
— it has regard to the need for personal data protection in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC [3], to
a ‘data protection by design’ approach and to the principles of proportionality, data minimization
and purpose limitation,
— it is consistent with the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC [2],
— it allows for the establishment of practical, user-friendly, flexible and cost-efficient electronic
invoicing systems,
— it considers the special needs of small and medium-sized enterprises as well as of sub-central
contracting authorities and contracting entities,
— it is suitable for use in commercial transactions between enterprises.”
Further on in article 3 the Directive [1] explicitly describes the task of testing:
— “the standard shall be tested as to its practical application for an end user.
— during the performance of the test, special account be taken of the respect for the criteria of
practicality, user-friendliness and possible implementation costs”
Testing is also described in note 28 of Directive 2014/55/EU [1]:
“Prior to the introduction of the European standard on electronic invoicing in the Member States, the
practical application of the standard should be sufficiently tested. This assessment should be done
during the drawing up of the standard. That assessment should involve end users, and should address
aspects of practicality and user-friendliness, and should demonstrate that the standard can be
implemented in a cost efficient and proportionate manner.”
6
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
1 Scope
1.1 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. “
1.2 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.
1.3 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
7
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
the ISO 20022 Financial Invoice was not in sufficient use to justify being included. It was agreed at a
plenary session that the work could be dropped, and testing against ISO 20022 Financial Invoice is
deemed out of scope. The expert assigned analysed instead the mapping between the core invoice
model and ISO 20022 SEPA payment files (see section 11).
2 Normative references
The following documents, in whole or in part, are normat
...
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
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
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
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.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
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
2
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
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 . 40
9.4 Test Execution . 40
9.4.1 Semantic Model . 40
9.5 Test Results . 46
9.5.1 Semantic Model . 46
9.5.2 Traceability and Automated Reconciliation . 47
10 Automatic processing . 47
10.1 Requirements . 47
10.2 Testing . 48
10.3 Test results. 48
11 Conclusions . 49
Annex A (informative) WG6 Comment resolution on Semantic model . 50
Annex B (informative) List of visualization systems. 58
Annex C (informative) What is GITB? . 59
C.1 Introduction . 59
3
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
C.2 The GITB Testing Framework . 59
C.2.1 GITB Methodology . 59
C.2.2 GITB Architecture . 60
C.3 Implementation Specifications and Proof-of-Concept . 60
C.3.1 Implementation Specifications . 60
C.3.2 Prototype Test Registry and Repository . 61
C.4 Validation and transmission testing . 61
C.4.1 What to Test? . 61
C.4.2 How to Test?. 61
C.4.3 Test Suite, Test Case and Messaging Adapters . 63
C.5 CEN/TC 434 usage of GITB and Test Cases . 65
C.5.1 Overview . 65
C.5.2 Standalone Document Validation Test Cases for the Invoice Providers . 66
C.6 Test execution . 68
C.6.1 General. 68
C.6.2 Standalone Document Validation through the GITB website . 68
C.6.3 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for UBL syntax and PEPPOL AS2 protocol . 75
C.6.4 Invoice Provider Basic Conformance Test for EDIFACT syntax and OFTP2 protocol . 81
C.6.5 OFTP2 Message Validation . 82
Bibliography . 84
4
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 16931-6:2017) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 434
“Electronic invoicing”, the secretariat of which is held by NEN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent
rights.
This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the
European Free Trade Association.
This document is part of a set of documents, consisting of:
• EN 16931-1:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 1: Semantic data model of the core elements of an
electronic invoice
• CEN/TS 16931-2:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 2: List of syntaxes that comply with EN 16931-1
• CEN/TS 16931-3-1:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 1: Methodology for syntax bindings of the
core elements of an electronic invoice
• CEN/TS 16931-3-2:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 2: Syntax binding for ISO/IEC 19845 (UBL
2.1) invoice and credit note
• CEN/TS 16931-3-3:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 3: Syntax binding for UN/CEFACT XML
Cross Industry Invoice D16B
• CEN/TS 16931-3-4:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 3 - 4: Syntax binding for UN/EDIFACT INVOIC
D16B
• CEN/TR 16931-4:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 4: Guidelines on interoperability of electronic
invoices at the transmission level
• CEN/TR 16931-5:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 5: Guidelines on the use of sector or country
extensions in conjunction with EN 16931-1, methodology to be applied in the real environment
• CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 Electronic invoicing - Part 6: Result of the test of the European standard
with respect to its practical application for an end user
5
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
0 Introduction
0.1 Summary
The Technical Report contains the results of the testing. In summary, it should demonstrate that
EN 16931-1 and its related specifications, particularly the syntax bindings, is fit for purpose.
The report has three main sections, one for the semantic testing where an overview of the methodology,
the testing and the results are described (Clause 4). The second section (Clauses 5 to 8) is the syntax
testing, and this is split in different subchapters to test all the steps needed to create and send an
invoice instance. The final section (Clauses 9 to 10) describes the tests performed to ensure the EN is
suitable for automatic processing. This section has two sub chapters, one for payments and one for
automatic processing in general.
0.2 Requirements for testing derived from European legislation
Article 3 of Directive 2014/55/EU [1] states that:
“The Commission shall request that the relevant European standardisation organisation draft a
European standard for the semantic data model of the core elements of an electronic invoice (the
‘European standard on electronic invoicing’).
The Commission shall require that the European standard on electronic invoicing complies at least with
the following criteria:
— it is technologically neutral,
— it is compatible with relevant international standards on electronic invoicing,
— it has regard to the need for personal data protection in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC [3], to
a ‘data protection by design’ approach and to the principles of proportionality, data minimization
and purpose limitation,
— it is consistent with the relevant provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC [2],
— it allows for the establishment of practical, user-friendly, flexible and cost-efficient electronic
invoicing systems,
— it considers the special needs of small and medium-sized enterprises as well as of sub-central
contracting authorities and contracting entities,
— it is suitable for use in commercial transactions between enterprises.”
Further on in article 3 the Directive [1] explicitly describes the task of testing:
— “the standard shall be tested as to its practical application for an end user.
— during the performance of the test, special account be taken of the respect for the criteria of
practicality, user-friendliness and possible implementation costs”
Testing is also described in note 28 of Directive 2014/55/EU [1]:
“Prior to the introduction of the European standard on electronic invoicing in the Member States, the
practical application of the standard should be sufficiently tested. This assessment should be done
during the drawing up of the standard. That assessment should involve end users, and should address
aspects of practicality and user-friendliness, and should demonstrate that the standard can be
implemented in a cost efficient and proportionate manner.”
6
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
1 Scope
1.1 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. “
1.2 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.
1.3 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
7
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16931-6:2018
CEN/TR 16931-6:2017 (E)
the ISO 20022 Financial Invoice was not in sufficient use to justify being included. It was agreed at a
plenary session that the work could be dropped, and testing against ISO 20022 Financial Invoice is
deemed out of scope. The expert assigned analysed instead the mapping between the core invoice
model and ISO 20022 SEPA payment files (see section 11).
2 Normative references
The following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in this document and are
indispensable for its applicati
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.