Open dosse opened 3 years ago
It looks like the TimeRange
is supposed to require both a StartPeriod
and EndPeriod
.
In any case it might make sense to keep one pair.
To be discussed in the TWG.
Unless anyone disagrees, propose to drop BeforePeriod and AfterPeriod (looks like a bug)
Unless anyone disagrees, propose to drop BeforePeriod and AfterPeriod (looks like a bug) BeforePeriod is for reporting information that is valid until a specific date and later would be replaced for updated data
Hi @DrJMunozMx, why wouldn't EndPeriod play the same role?
EndPerid may play the same role. But as is now defined it is used to set the end of the period started by StartPeriod. The comment was to clarify that this is not a bug, but a question of conceptualization.
My take on interpreting the Information Model is that it is possible to have
Marking this as bug was only because the above could be simply implemented using two time properties (from/to or start/end) instead of having four.
I hope that explains the rationale.
Hello, Could you please clarify the meaning of TimeRangeValueType/BeforePeriod and TimeRangeValueType/AfterPeriod especially versus TimeRangeValueType/StartPeriod and TimeRangeValueType/EndPeriod in ContentConstraints?
The IM documentations says:
Also see: https://github.com/sdmx-twg/sdmx-ml/blob/import21files/schemas/SDMXCommon.xsd#L903
What is justifying the existence of these different approaches? Could this be simplified (by deprecating one way of doing)?