Re: [ubl-psc] udt:Amount type - does it need qualifying in UBL 2.0??

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

I think this comes under a broader issue.  I apologize to Stephen for repeating
some of his points but I think it needs putting into perspective.

The real question we have to ask is what specialized data types do we want/need
for UBL 2.0?

Under CCTS, we are allowed to derived our specialized data types from the
ATG2 unqualified data types [note the horrible difference in terminology].
 But if we do so we must model them and create the appropriate schema file.

In UBL 1.0 we did this for the data types where we wanted to specify values
for their attributes.   Mainly this meant codes sets.

UBL_Amount is the only specialized data type in UBL 1.0 that is not a code.
 Therefore it is the only one not likely to be made redundant by the code
list debate.

We created UBL_Amount so we could mandate the use of a specific version of
the ISO currency codes in any BBIE that was an amount.  If we use the ATG2
unqualified data type called 'Amount' then this specifices ISO codes for
us.  What it does not do is specify the version of ISO being used.

So I would say we do need to keep UBL_Amount as a UBL specialization of the
ATG2 unqualified data type called Amount.  We specialize it by making the
value of the attribute AmountCurrencyCodeListVersionID to be always "0.3".

Now we need to decide how to implement this.

Stephen Green wrote:

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

 

-- 
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