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

["Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com>]

I apologize for this boring topic Tim and Stephen. I think it's important
for those who are new to the development process to understand the issues
here.

You are correct. UBL uses a constant of "0.3". I think it's important
however to determine if we need to be this restrictive at the data model
level. It is possible to specify code list versions at the schema level as
part of an implementation guide. At the data model level, I would expect to
see the code list called out (i.e. UNECE 6345), but, not necessarily the
version. The scenario I saw most frequently as an implementer was that
trading partners needed to use a new currency code long before ISO published
the updated list. If UBL specifies a code list version, the interoperability
problem that you mention is not solved.  

What I question is what appears to be an assumption that two companies will
exchange UBL business documents without agreeing to code list versions in
advance.  If this is the case, then it is very important to specify the code
list version. Everything that I'm reading and hearing seems to indicate that
the exchange of electronic business documents without specifying this level
of detail is a long term goal. Even with OASIS CPP and CPA standards, I'm
hearing that companies will continue to agree at a detailed level on
specifics like code list versions. There are always exceptions. Are these
exceptions part of the 80/20 rule?

Regards,
Sylvia  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:16 PM
To: swebb@gefeg.com
Cc: 'Stephen Green'; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
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:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:36 PM
>To: Stephen Green
>Cc: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.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