Dennis,
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
presentation.
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.
Better?
Patrick
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:]
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/200912/msg00123.html
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 13:30
> To:
> 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)
