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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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


Subject: Re: [office] YEARFRAC, etc.


Andreas,

Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:13 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>   
>> David,
>>
>> David A. Wheeler wrote:
>>     
>>> Rob: Thanks for posting the YEARFRAC information from Microsoft XML.  Sadly, it's not specific enough for a real implementation.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> In what way is it "not specific enough?" As I recall, our definition did 
>> not state the distinction between options 1 and 4 other than by example, 
>> which is also insufficient for implementation.
>>     
>
> Pardon me? The fact that our definition is yet not exact is a reflection
> of a misguided attempt to make it look like what MS XL does. I believe
> OpenFormula has not yet been approved as a Standard. Finding utter
> nonsense in an approved standard is quite a different issue.
>  
>   
No, actually since we are trying to make a standard ourselves, it is our 
job to find when we have failed to be specific enough.

This was an issue I uncovered months ago and strikes at the heart of an 
entire set of financial calculations.

David assured me and I actually verified for myself, by chasing one 
accounting society after another until I finally reached "the man" on 
the issue who said: "whatever MS Excel does." ;-)

Admittedly not the answer I wanted to hear but the purpose of standards, 
particularly one like formula, is not to specify the *correct* answer 
for something like YEARFRAC, which has never been defined, formally, 
anywhere.

The goal is to define YEARFRAC in such a way that everyone and I do mean 
everyone, gets the same answer by applying it. Being contrary may be a 
value in some cases but not with standards.
>>> I can try to get more information.  But it's clear that we are
>>>       
>> holding ourselves to a higher standard than ISO requires, since ISO
>> doesn't require accurate definitions of YEARFRAC.
>>     
>
> I guess we have all seen that ISO does not hold itself to any standard. 
>   
>>>   
>>>       
I thought we were supposed to be writing our standard. Yes?
>> SC 34 is setting up an errata process to address that type of concern. I 
>> am assuming that if we can propose a solution to the problem and obtain 
>> agreement, even informal, that no one is going to deliberately adopt a 
>> different definition of YEARFRAC.
>>
>>     
>
> I suggest that for the purposes of defining the behaviour of YEARFRAC in
> OpenFormula, we essentially ignore whatever MS has included in their
> definition but provide an exact (and therefore implementable)
> definition. Obviously we may want to used something which in general
> usage may resemble what XL does but since even MS was unable to define
> what they happen to calculate it is silly to try to emulate them to
> closely.
>
>   
A better solution would be to provide an agreed upon and exact (and 
therefore implementable) definition that everyone will be using.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick
> Andreas
>
>  
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
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]