[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] data cache, field name and source field id for data pilottable
Kohei Yoshida <email@example.com> wrote on 12/12/2008 11:38:15 PM:
> Re: [office] data cache, field name and source field id for data pilot table
> Hi Ming,
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:18 +0800, Ming Fei Jia wrote:
> > Kohei Yoshida <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 11/25/2008 06:30:28 AM:
> > > Re: [office] data cache, field name and source field id for data
> > pilot table
> > As I understand, field member name specifies the value of data pilot
> > member,currently using the attribute <table:member-name> to represent.
> > What I can see the benefit of allowing member name to rename is the
> > more human readable. For example, for a field "Country", which has 2
> > values: "China" and "USA". The "China" and "USA" will be 2 field
> > members. In order to be more human readable for Chinese people, we can
> > allow users to rename the member name to the corresponding Chinese
> > string "$BCf9q(B".
> > Of course, this rename shall be unique at least in the current data
> > pilot table scope, otherwise, will cause confusing.
> Agreed. We will probably need to working on including some sort of
> unique name requirement in the specification.
> > But I think only human readable the requirement seems not strong
> > enough, could you have any function requirement for renaming member
> > name? That will be better.
> How about interoperability with Excel? Excel supports this at least for
> the past few versions (and probably more versions before that), and we
> frequently receive customer documents making use of this feature. Not
> supporting this in ODF means that we'll lose that information once such
> document is saved in ODF. To me that is a strong case in favor of
> supporting this enhancement in ODF.
> Additionally, I can think of a case where the user of data pilot does
> not have the ability to change member names because he/she does not have
> access to the source data (e.g. external database or cached data). Even
> if the user has access to the source data, changing the name of one
> member may require modifying a large number of cells if that member
> occurs frequently in the associated field. Providing a quick way to
> temporarily rename a member name in one location should be a worthwhile
Yes, a case for functional requirement. thanks for explanation.
> BTW, this proposal of mine:
> which proposes a super-set of the field display name part of your
> proposal (and includes other attributes such as grand-total-name and
> data-pilot-subtotal-name), was originally inspired by the
> interoperability requirement, and later reinforced by user requests. To
> me, that is a strong enough requirement to make this enhancement
> worthwhile for inclusion in the ODF standard.
I saw your proposal. A few comments here:
(1)table:grand-total is enumeration type, and can choose none,row,column or both. So if you want to define display names for grand total, at least define 2 names: one is for row, the other is for column. right?
(2)table:data-pilot-sub-total is already defined as an element. Why not just add an attribute table:display-name to the element itself?
(3)I do not very understand the table:data-pilot-field-member-marker you proposed.
Additionally, I find <table:data-field> in <table:data-pilot-display-info> and <table:data-pilot-sort-info> may also need a display name. Currently <table:data-field> only specifies the source data field name. But here <table:data-field> is an attribute name, and can not contain attribute. So maybe add a new attribute <table:data-field-name> to the element <table:data-pilot-display-info> and <table:data-pilot-sort-info>. Or alternative solutions? Maybe your proposal need to include the 2 places so that we can provide a relative complete solution.
> To me the name table:display-name is more indicative of the purpose of
> this attribute, since its value is used for display purposes only. The
> name field-name, on the other hand, sounds a little ambiguous for what
> the attribute is used for.
> (I'm aware that later you changed this to field-display-name, which IMO
> is better in terms of explicit naming. But I still prefer a more
> neutral display-name for the reason I outline below.)
> And when other elements need an alternative name for display purposes,
> we could re-use this name without conditionalizing its semantics based
> on the parent element. As my proposal indicates, the data-pilot-member
> element is one such element that could use this attribute.
Make sense. A similar case is <draw:display-name>, totally 9 elements re-use the same <draw:display-name>, pls refer to 18.233 in OpenDocument-v1.2-draft7-11.odt. Of course, this re-use has its condition that the display name attribute is just for the element that contains it. Otherwise, we have to specify the explict object name. For example, <table:display-name> is not
> Having said this, I'm open to alternative suggestions.
> > >
> > > 2) Regarding the assignment of unique IDs to each field in the data
> > > source, you propose to use the sheet name plus the column label as
> > the
> > > unique ID. Why not simply use 0-based numerical IDs? When the data
> > > source is loaded, I can imagine internally the data are structured
> > in a
> > > single tabular form anyway. So, I would imagine using the column
> > (or
> > > field) indices of that internal table would make the implementation
> > a
> > > little simpler. Doing that would also allow it to be used when the
> > data
> > > source is not on a local spreadsheet but in an external data source,
> > > and/or the data source is cached (as in your proposal).
> > Sure, I just take an example for the ID, not definately a sheet name
> > plus column label. What I propose is only a unique ID that can
> > represent the location of the source field in the data source. As to
> > how this ID is comprised of, I originally do not care much. But now as
> > you said, I think using an index value of the source table as the
> > source field id is better. I've changed the source field id definition
> > in the wiki(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/data_cache%
> > 2C_field_name_and_source_field_id_for_data_pilot_tables). I checked MS
> > Excel, which uses an index from 1, so I define this ID as
> > postiveInteger in oder to keep good interoperability with Excel.
> I personally don't see any strong case favoring either 0-based or
> 1-based. So, your suggestion sounds reasonable to me. I just
> personally prefer 0-based numbering for everything unless there is a
> specific reason to pick 1-based numbering. But that's just my personal
> taste. ;-)
> But like I said, 1-based numbering is fine with me (although it would be
> nice to know why Excel chooses 1-based numbering here).
MS Excel just uses 1-based IDs. So interoperability makes me incline to 1 instead of 0, :-)
As to why Excel uses 1, maybe Doug or Eric can answer. But seems no explicit meaning here, maybe only a taste.
> Best regards,
> Kohei Yoshida - OpenOffice.org Engineer - Novell, Inc.
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: