Re: [ubl] ATG2 udt:Amount and the need for a UBL 2.0 UBLAmount

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

not sure i follow the logic here.  my understanding is that the ATG2 UQT for AmountType requires a CurrencyID attribute as per:

<xsd:extension base="xsd:decimal">
    <xsd:attribute name="currencyID" type="clm54217:CurrencyCodeContentType" use="required">
    </xsd:attribute>
</xsd:extension>

and that the namespace is:
<xsd:import namespace="urn:un:unece:uncefact:codelist:draft:5:4217:2001" schemaLocation="CodeList_CurrencyCode_ISO_7_04.xsd"/>

This implies to me that when we use ATG2 AmountType it will require ISO 4217 currency codes (presumably 2001 version).  From the code set i can see it is the alphabetic codes that are used.  I dont know what the _7_04 signifies (i suspect it is the ATG2 versioning system)

In UBL 1.0 we had UBL_AmountType as:
      <xsd:restriction base="udt:AmountType">
        <xsd:attribute name="amountCurrencyID" type="cur:CurrencyCodeContentType" use="required"/>
        <xsd:attribute name="amountCurrencyCodeListVersionID" type="xsd:normalizedString" fixed="0.3" use="optional"/>
      </xsd:restriction>
<xsd:import namespace="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CurrencyCode-1.0" schemaLocation="../codelist/UBL-CodeList-CurrencyCode-1.0.xsd"/>

In the code set itself we identified "ISO 4217 Alpha" as the codeListID and "0.3" as the codeListVersionID.

This leads me to think that to be compatible with UBL 1.0 we don't need our own Specialized data types for Amount (which for the sake of consistency we should now be calling Qualified data types).  If we assume 2001 ISO 4217 is version 0.3 (which i suspect it is) then a UBL 1.0 currency code is still valid in the ATG2 world.

Your comment about "required" seems to be another issue (a request for change).  Is that correct?


PS this discussion exposes the whole code management problem.  Our 1.0 URL to BSI is now dead and it appears you have to buy the code sets to see them.  Another good reason to let CEFACT manage these.

Stephen Green wrote:

As per my action on the last Pacific call, I've looked at the Amount
UDT in the ATG2 NDR (latest sent by Sylvia). It doesn't actually
include the UDT schema but section 9.1.1 reads, of udt:AmountType,

"The element "TotalAmount" is based on the unqualified data type "udt:AmountType":

<xsd:element name="TotalAmount" type="udt:AmountType"/>

The udt:AmountType is declared in the unqualified schema module as:

<xsd:schema targetNamespace="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:draft:UnqualifiedDataTypeSchemaModule:1.1.A" xmlns:clm54217="urn:un:unece:uncefact:codelist:draft:5:4217:2001" * 
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
	<!-- ===== Imports                                                 ===== -->
	<!-- =================================================================== -->
	<!-- ===== Imports of Code Lists                                   ===== -->
	<!-- =================================================================== -->
	<xsd:import namespace="urn:un:unece:uncefact:codelist:draft:5:4217:2001" schemaLocation="CodeList_CurrencyCode_ISO_7_04.xsd"/>
	*
	<!-- ===== Type Definitions                                        ===== -->
	<!-- =================================================================== -->
	<!-- ===== Primary RT: Amount. Type                                ===== -->
	<!-- =================================================================== -->
	<xsd:complexType name="AmountType">
		<xsd:simpleContent>
			<xsd:extension base="xsd:decimal">
				<xsd:attribute name="currencyCode" type="clm54217:CurrencyCodeContentType" use="required"/>
			</xsd:extension>
		</xsd:simpleContent>
	</xsd:complexType>

This udt:AmountType includes one attribute (supplementary component), which is based on the simple type "clm54217:CurrencyCodeContentType", which comes from the schema module of the code list "ISO 4217". Therefore, the code values of the attribute "currencyCode" are only based on this standardized code list. 
The code list schema module for ISO 4217 is:
..."

so from this I'd say we certainly still need a qdt:UBLAmountType (qdt: or sdt: ?)
and it would differ from the UBL 1.0 sdt:UBLAmountType in that it would
replace the 'fixed="..."' schema attribute for supplementary components 
with, say (I'd suggest), 'default="..."' .



All the best

Steve




  

"Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com> 12/09/05 23:03:28 >>>
        

Peter,
 
Please advise when the uDT spreadsheet for UBL 2.0 will be updated to
conform with the ATG2 uDT schema module? I am attaching the latest draft
ATG2 NDR document. The uDT's are listed in Appendix E. 
 
The uDT spreadsheet that was provided to GEFEG is from UBL 1.0 and no longer
valid.
 
Please rename the file with a .zip extension before unloading.
 
Regards,
Sylvia


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 


  

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476