Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Representation Terms

In thinking more about my previous 
e-mail,

a) of course, with regard to the Amount, 

we do already have BIEs for various 
currencies.

It makes we wonder whether there has been a 

reluctance to rely on those sparse supplementary 

component attributes for the CCT Amount 

and use separately declared Code BIEs for currency 
which

do have all the necessary supplementary 
components 

(in the CCT Schema, if not, now, in 
the 

CC DT Schema).

If my guess is right then maybe we are better 
off without 

the rest of the Supplementary Components 
in 

Amount in order to avoid there being two ways 
to specify a currency.

To do this wouldn't we need either for a 
restriction to

be applied in the CC DT Schema or in the UBL DT 
Schema?

*** Then we'd also need the reversal somehow of 
the 

dropping of the supplementary components from 
the 

CC DT (RT) Schema for Code or perhaps a 
way

to use the CCT Code or to restrict the CCT (not 
CC

 DT) Code differently in the UBL DT Schema (including 

the missing Supplementary 
Components) 

and use that ***

On that line (perhaps going too far - so close to 
final release) 

couldn't the same logic be applied to 
Measure

and Quantity - to avoid the use of their CCT Supp 
Comps for 

UOM without the codelist mechanism:

If the Code Supp Comps were 
fixed 

we could restrict Measure and Quantity to have 

no code supplementary components

Then we could add (the messy part?) 

Code-based BBIEs to the model to specify UOM 

Unlike Amount/Currency we'd have to do this for 

each and every Measure and Quantity (they could 

all be different) - perhaps creating an appropriate 
ABIE with

Measure.Measure and 
UnitsOfMeasure.Code

 

If someone says that the codelist methodology will 
rule 

out the need to specify codelists (not codes, 
obviously), 

I'm not so sure that a legal document wiould be 
allowed 

to have codelists which aren't specified in the 
document itself. 

This might, I *guess*, apply particularly to 
both

currency and measure/quantity. Having Currency 
BBIEs is 

one thing but I'd guess they'd have in most global 
cases (albeit 

perhaps not including the USA 

where I've heard it is acceptable, at least in some 
cases, 

not to even speicfy the currency) to 
specify

both currency and codelist (even if it's ISO 
4217).

 

 

Steve

 

----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Stephen Green 

  
To: UBL NDRSC 

  
Cc:  
  

  
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:28 
  AM

  
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Representation 
  Terms

  

  
I'm going through the CCT Datatype 
  (Representation Term) Schema and I have a few issues still

  
outstanding really from the last instance sample 
  

  
generation / review cycle

  
 

  
1.  In Measure and in Quantity we still 
  have

  
unitCodeListID 

  
unitCodeListAgencyID

  
unitCodeListAgencyName
as supplementary 
  components

  
 

  
but in Code we have this restricted to 
  

  
*none*

  
 

  
and in Amount we have it defined in the CCT 
  Schema as

  
currencyID

  
codeListVersionID

  
 

  
My question/issue is:

  
 

  
with Code:

  
the codelist mechanism might have to be very 
  good to avoid

  
need for any meta data at all - can we guarantee 
  this?

  
Shouldn't we still have

  
listID

  
listAgencyID

  
listAgencyName
?

  
 

  
with Amount a CCT issue really:

  
we seem to have a version ID 

  
but is it decided and clear to all that there 
  is

  
just the one codelist that can be used so 
  that we don't even 

  
have to specify what it is but only which 
  version?

  
 

  
 

  
2.  Just a request for feedback from 
  the last NDRSC

  
call (unavoidable that I couldn't make it) 
  regarding

  
my issue of 

  
type="xsd:token"

  
missing from some of the elements in the 
  Schema

  
 

  
3. Who will be editing the DT (CCT 
  DT) and RT (UBL DT) Schemas?

  
Will it still be Gunther and 
  Garrett?

  
Will it still be in collaboration / 
  synchronisation with OAG and/or ATG?

  
How will it fit with the 
  schedule? and tools work?

  
We'll presumably need any changes 
  introduced prior to instance

  
generation. There may be some impact on 
  this and on FPSC work

  
if the listID and listAgencyID are put back 
  into the CCT DT Schema.

  
I don't see what can be done, if anything 
  at this stage, about the

  
Amount supplementary components and how to 
  specify the

  
codeListID

  
codeListAgencyID

  
and 

  
codeListAgencyName

  
but if it were possible and agreed we'd need a 
  suitable schedule for this

  
- 

  
Otherwise perhaps something should be put into 
  the Documentation

  
 

  
 

  
Sorry to keep pestering - just last minute 
  rush

  
 

  
All the best

  
 

  
Many thanks

  
 

  
Steve