Re: [office-formula] euroconvert

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 12/02/2009 05:26:49 AM:
> 
> I assume:
> 
> > Converts a number from one to another Euro currency.
> >
> Should read:
> 
> Converts amounts of defined currencies to and from Euro currency.
> 

Converts a Number, representing a value in one European currency, to an 
equivalent value in another European currency, according to the fixed 
conversion rates defined by the Council of the European Union.

> (Questions for Europeans on the list: Is "Euro currency" the correct way 

> to refer to Euros as a monetary system? Is the conversion fixed and 
> where is it defined? We simply say the conversion rate here.
> 

No idea.  Since the function can be used to convert between two legacy 
national currencies, not even involving the Euro explicitly, I don't know 
if we really need to mention the Euro here.

As for where these are defined, they are defined by various EC directives. 
 The big initial introduction of the Euro in 1999 defined most of the 
conversion rates, but then there are later introductions, such as Greece, 
Malta, Slovenia, etc., and these each had their rates set by their own 
individual directives. 

This page at the European Central Bank is certainly authoratative, and we 
should double-check our conversion factors against it:

http://www.ecb.int/euro/intro/html/index.en.html

However, I would not vouch for the long-term stability of that URL.  It 
could move tomorrow.  So it is probably best to include our own table of 
values and refer to the authority generally as "Council of the European 
Union".


> Under semantics we say:
> 
> > The function /must/ be able to convert between the Euro ("EUR") and 
> > various older European countries.
> >
> Sorry, not "various older European countries." Must mean European 
> currencies but then those are listed.
> 
> Unless it is meant that the function converts between currencies that 
> are not defined?
> 
> Why would the semantics section say that the function "must be able to 
> convert" since the function has no meaning if it doesn't do that?
> 

Sounds redundant to me.  I'd make the clause merely define the semantics 
of the function and put any mandatory requirements ("shall") in the 
conformance clause generically as "an OpenFormula processor shall support 
the semantics of the functions corresponding to the conformance level 
supported" or something like that. 


-Rob

> I suspect there is some other semantic at play but I don't know what it 
is.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> -- 
> 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) 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>