OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-psc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]