お客様から差し入れらるデータの記載方法をかえてもらわなければならない。
でもそれ以前にハンブルグの要求に一貫性を感じる事ができません
メールの内容は、dataが分かれていればそれぞれにCODEが必要である、との理解で
dataがわかれていないのにCODEをわけなければならないとは書いていないように思えます。
そして、どれがよい例どれがだめな例であるのか境界線をしっかりと説明していただけると助かります。
そうしたら、私達もより理解し、お客様に説明し納得して頂けると思います。
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2016/07/19 15:37:46に投稿されました
You have to change how to list data that is given by your customer.
But before that, I cannot feel consistency about the requirement of Hamburg.
I understand that details of the email is that if the data is divided, code is necessary for each data.
It does not say that if the data is not divided, the code does not have to be divided.
Would you please explain the classification of which is good data and which is bad data clearly?
Then we understand better, and will explain it to our customers and they will be satisfied.
But before that, I cannot feel consistency about the requirement of Hamburg.
I understand that details of the email is that if the data is divided, code is necessary for each data.
It does not say that if the data is not divided, the code does not have to be divided.
Would you please explain the classification of which is good data and which is bad data clearly?
Then we understand better, and will explain it to our customers and they will be satisfied.
評価
44
翻訳 / 英語
- 2016/07/19 15:40:17に投稿されました
We need to have the way of recording the data which is sent from the customers modified.
However, even before that, we cannot feel consistency in the request from Hamburg.
According to the e-mail, it seems that CODE is respectively necessary if data is divided, and does not seem that CODE needs to be separated when data is not separated.
Also, we would be happy if you clearly explain the criteria, as for which example is the good, and which one is not.
If you do so, we believe we can understand more clearly, and we can explain to the customer in much better way so that they can understand and be happy with it.
However, even before that, we cannot feel consistency in the request from Hamburg.
According to the e-mail, it seems that CODE is respectively necessary if data is divided, and does not seem that CODE needs to be separated when data is not separated.
Also, we would be happy if you clearly explain the criteria, as for which example is the good, and which one is not.
If you do so, we believe we can understand more clearly, and we can explain to the customer in much better way so that they can understand and be happy with it.
評価
51
翻訳 / 英語
- 2016/07/19 15:46:47に投稿されました
We need you to change the description method of the data which the customer give us.
But, I can't feel the consistency of the Hambourg's requirement before that.
I understand the e-mail ocntent that they need CODE to each data if they are separated. Also, I don't think it isn't written that we should divide CODE because the data doesn't.
Additionally, it would be helpful to me if you explain the boarder which are good example or not.
If you would do that, I think we can understand more and explain the customers to be satisfied.
But, I can't feel the consistency of the Hambourg's requirement before that.
I understand the e-mail ocntent that they need CODE to each data if they are separated. Also, I don't think it isn't written that we should divide CODE because the data doesn't.
Additionally, it would be helpful to me if you explain the boarder which are good example or not.
If you would do that, I think we can understand more and explain the customers to be satisfied.
