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:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:36 PM
To: Stephen Green
Cc:
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
