[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] udt:Amount type - does it need qualifying in UBL 2.0??
We discussed off list whether to have ourown qualified version of the udt:AmountMmm.. I don't think it is less of a use of theATG2 datatypes to add our own qualifieddatatypes. Just to do so as an example toothers might justify it but it would still be better,I think, to only do so if the ATG2 unqualifieddatatype Amount is insufficient. This was whatwe agreed was the case when in 1.0 we addedthe UBLAmount (admittedly though it wasn'tan alternative to the ATG2 udt:Amount but to theCCTS conceptual unqualified Amount): wewanted to limit the codelist version to - was it0.3 or 3.0 I can't remember - and to fix therelevant attribute to that. Now, however, I'd saywe should avoid fixing any version attribute asa rule since it precludes backwards compatibilitylater when in a minor version we wish to changeto a newer version say.My opinion is that we don't want to fix theversion of the currency codelist used with a majorversion Amount (as it might have to change inminor versions) but to allow users to specifywhich they use (and therefore be able to changeit without having to progress to another majorversion). So we ought not fix it. Then the questionis: Is the ATG2 udt:Amount appropriate for thiswithout specialization/qualification?All the bestSteve
-- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]