udt:Amount type - does it need qualifying in UBL 2.0 ??

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