[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 ??
The attached screen shot shows the ATG2 udt amount type on the left. On the right is the UBL 1.0 specialized (sDT) amount type. What is the difference in the two? Regards, Sylvia ________________________________ From: Tim McGrath [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:36 PM To: Stephen Green Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] udt:Amount type - does it need qualifying in UBL 2.0 ?? 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