Re: [lmi] actuarial tables format (was Re: Terse list of valuable projects)

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:57:46 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> So I suppose this example might be written thus
GC> (with some xml comments referring to class actuarial_table):
GC> 
GC> <table>
GC>     <select period="3"/>           <!-- NOTE 1 -->
GC>     <age min="10" max="80">        <!-- min_age(), max_select_age() -->
GC>         <age_index="10">           <!-- NOTE 2 -->
GC>             <value>0.00106</value>
GC>             <value>0.00140</value>
GC>             <value>0.00165</value>
GC>         </age_index>
GC>         <age_index="11">
GC>             <value>0.00113</value>
GC>             <value>0.00148</value>
GC>             <value>0.00175</value>
GC>         </age_index>
...
GC> NOTE 2: I'm not sure <age_index> is the best way to express this,
GC> because it seems that redundancy should be avoided:
GC>     <age min="10" max="80">  <!-- This says the first age is "10",   -->
GC>         <age_index="10">     <!-- so repeating "10" here seems wrong -->
GC> (and <age_index="10"> doesn't look like good xml to me anyway),
GC> but repeating the bounds each time
GC>     <age min="10" max="80">
GC> for age 10, 11, 12, ... 80 doesn't seem right to me either.

 Hello,

 I have almost no knowledge of the domain so I may be missing something
utterly obvious to both you and Vaclav, but why do we have to specify the
minimal and maximal ages at all? I.e. what would be wrong with having

        <table>
                <select period="3">
                        <row age="10">
                                <value>0.00106</value>
                                <value>0.00140</value>
                                <value>0.00165</value>
                        </row>
                        <row age="11">
                                <value>0.00113</value>
                                <value>0.00148</value>
                                <value>0.00175</value>
                        </row>
                        ...
                </select>
        </table>

"row" might be a bad choice but this structure seems to map directly to the
usual table representation and doesn't suffer from any redundancy so what's
wrong with it?

 Sorry again if I'm totally missing the point here,
VZ