udt:Amount type - does it need qualifying in UBL 2.0 ??

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

We discussed off list whether to have our

own qualified version of the udt:Amount

 

Mmm.. I don't think it is less of a use of the

ATG2 datatypes to add our own qualified

datatypes. Just to do so as an example to

others might justify it but it would still be better,

I think, to only do so if the ATG2 unqualified

datatype Amount is insufficient. This was what

we agreed was the case when in 1.0 we added

the UBLAmount (admittedly though it wasn't

an alternative to the ATG2 udt:Amount but to the

CCTS conceptual unqualified Amount): we

wanted to limit the codelist version to - was it

0.3 or 3.0 I can't remember - and to fix the

relevant attribute to that. Now, however, I'd say

we should avoid fixing any version attribute as

a rule since it precludes backwards compatibility

later when in a minor version we wish to change

to a newer version say.

 

My opinion is that we don't want to fix the

version of the currency codelist used with a major

version Amount (as it might have to change in

minor versions) but to allow users to specify

which they use (and therefore be able to change

it without having to progress to another major

version). So we ought not fix it. Then the question

is: Is the ATG2 udt:Amount appropriate for this

without specialization/qualification? 

 

All the best

 

Steve