BR-CL-10 The scheme identifier on the seller identifier (BT-29-1) is "9930", which is not in the ISO 6523 ICD list (243 codes)
The scheme identifier on the seller identifier (BT-29-1) is "9930", which is not in the ISO 6523 ICD list (243 codes). A party identifier without a resolvable scheme is a number in a namespace nobody can name: the receiver cannot tell a GLN from a national organisation number from an internal customer code, and automatic party matching either fails or matches the wrong record.
This rule is implemented and its error payload below is real, but the long-form write-up — normative text, worked example, divergence note — is not written yet. Everything the library knows about this rule is on this page. Ask and we will prioritise it.
- Business term
BT-29- Severity
fatal
What the library returns
The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires.
Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:
{
"rule": "BR-CL-10",
"field": "BT-29",
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The scheme identifier on the seller identifier (BT-29-1) is \"9930\", which is not in the ISO 6523 ICD list (243 codes). A party identifier without a resolvable scheme is a number in a namespace nobody can name: the receiver cannot tell a GLN from a national organisation number from an internal customer code, and automatic party matching either fails or matches the wrong record.",
"fix": "Set seller.identifier.schemeId to an ISO 6523 ICD code: \"0088\" GLN, \"0060\" D-U-N-S, \"0037\" Finnish OVT, \"0106\" Dutch KvK/OIN, \"0198\" Danish CVR, \"0204\" German Leitweg-ID, \"0002\" French SIRENE. The ICD list is broader than the EAS list used for electronic addresses (BR-CL-25), so a valid endpoint scheme is not automatically valid here and vice versa.",
"example": "\"identifier\": { \"schemeId\": \"0088\", \"value\": \"4304171000002\" }",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID/@schemeID",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-CL-10"
}
xpath locates the element in the generated UBL document,
which is where a KoSIT or Peppol validator will report the same problem.
A passing value
"identifier": { "schemeId": "0088", "value": "4304171000002" }The fix
Set seller.identifier.schemeId to an ISO 6523 ICD code: "0088" GLN, "0060" D-U-N-S, "0037" Finnish OVT, "0106" Dutch KvK/OIN, "0198" Danish CVR, "0204" German Leitweg-ID, "0002" French SIRENE. The ICD list is broader than the EAS list used for electronic addresses (BR-CL-25), so a valid endpoint scheme is not automatically valid here and vice versa.