Numeric Models

Greetings!

Eike objected to the deletion of 2.6 Numeric Models but did not say why.

As I read 2.6, it is entirely non-normative with the exception that it 
does not that unless an implementation (evaluator) has only integer-only 
arithmetic it cannot implement "/" as specified. That is worthy of a 
note under "/" but not an entire section.

Saying, as we do now under 2.6, that:

> In general, applications are encouraged to use appropriate standards 
> for their numerical models. This means that applications will often 
> not produce “exact” results, but only approximate results for a large 
> number of places.
>
Isn't helpful. What does "...encouraged to use appropriate standards for 
their numeric models." mean?

How does a user find out what "appropriate standards" for what "numeric 
models?

We should consider Paul Cotten's suggestion about implementation defined 
vs. dependent in this context.

That is in conformance we should require disclosure of numeric models by 
standard and departure from those standards as a matter of conforming to 
OpenFormula. Not to mandate a particular numeric model or standard or 
conformance to a standard but at least give users the information needed 
to make an informed choice between evaluators.

Hope everyone is having a great weekend!

Patrick

-- 
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)