[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??
you're correct the Identifier is available but in ATG2 it is left blank and with UBL 1.0 we had a fixed value of "0.3". it comes down to what we think these code lists are doing. if we think they are to give partners an ability to validate and understand the legitimate values they will see in this BBIE then just specifying ISO currency code (for example) is not enough. this is because they constantly change. only by adding the version do we fix the set of possible values. otherwise, specifying a code list is simply giving a loose indication of the types of values that may be found - but no guarantee of interoperability. i agree we can leave this to the individual implementations to decide, but then why not let them decide on code lists as well as versions? there is not really much difference. its rather like the ongoing problems with the rule that all terms must be in the Oxford English Dictionary. As we know the OED varies across editions and versions, so we have to very specific if we want to be sure everyone is using the same source - both for dictionary terms and for code list values. Sylvia Webb wrote: >I understand this in theory. I don't know if it offers users the greatest >amount of flexibility. What happens when ISO updates the currency codelist >and UBL specifies an older version? If we don't specify the version, it >becomes the option of trading partners which one to use. This also >eliminates the need to update UBL when ISO updates the list. > >The ATG2 uDT Amount Type does include Amount Currency. Code List Version. >Identifier (see attached file). What additional version information do we >need? > >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