OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office-formula] frequency


Look at COUPDAYBS for example.

Guess what? We define frequency twice on the same page:

> /frequency/ is one of the following values:
followed by a table, then a listing of "parameters" which says:

> The number of coupon payments per year.
Is one more specific than the other? Certainly. Should there be two? 
Certainly not.

Moreover, look at: ODDLYIELD which says:

>    *
>       Frequency: the number of interest payments per year. 1=annual;
>       2=half-yearly; 4=quarterly.
Note, not coupon payments but interest payments and different style of 

I suspect that we could have *one* definition of frequency that could be 
referenced when needed.

What surprised me was that I had simply "skipped over "the frequency is 
one of the following values," even though I knew it was duplication but 
did not see it as yet another parameter report.



Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Patrick, I just did a search for all occurrences of "frequency" in the
> document and I find none of them out of wack.  There are a few different
> kinds of frequency (as when talking about certain statistical operations
> versus talking about the periodicity of interest payments per 12-month
> interval).  These are all expressed clearly in pretty ordinary language.
> And the parameter named frequency in the financial functions is used
> consistently as well, although not all frequencies are expected to be
> supported for every one of the functions.  
> I am sure this could be tidied up a bit, but I don't see a very big problem.
> Can you point to a few exemplary instances that demonstrate the significant
> variation that concerns you?  We could be more slavish (maybe always using a
> table for the interest-payment frequency numbers) but I don't think there is
> a significant problem for these.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00123.html
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 13:30
> To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office-formula] frequency
> Greetings!
> A bit shame faced, one of the largest inconsistencies was sitting right 
> in front of me, frequency. Defined quite differently from all the other 
> parameters, over and over again. Just looked right past it.
> Don't know about its variability. Will add to the spreadsheet but 
> without reproduction of the entire table. That wouldn't be all that 
> informative.
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> Patrick
> PS: If anyone is interested in other function sets, feel free to do 
> something similar for those sets. This sort of extreme proofing is what 
> results in standards that people *use* and *cite,* which is the goal of 
> any standard.

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]