search

sdmx-twg / vtl

This repository is used for maintaining the SDMX-VTL specification
11 stars 7 forks source link

The Variables and Value Domains artefacts #49

Open stratosn opened 7 years ago

stratosn commented 7 years ago
reporter issue reference document (UM/RM/EBNF) page line
LV-2 UM 35-38

Issue Description

Different VTL artefacts are listed but not all of them are in the DDL part of the reference manual and neither are all used in operators: Code List, N-Dimensional Value Domain, Set (is this the value domain subset?), Set List, Code Item Relation, Code Item Relation Operand

Proposed Solution

Should we align the two documents adding them or removing as VTL artefacts or explain this difference between the two documents?

bellomarini commented 7 years ago

I remark that in some cases a define operator creates more artefacts in just one invocation. However, all the define operators have to be double checked to understand if any cases are still missing.

VincDV commented 7 years ago

In some cases, as Luigi writes, the comment is not correct because more types of artefacts are created with a unique statement of the VTL-DL. For example this is the case of the list of codes that belong to an enumerated Value Domain (which is defined in the same statement that defines the Value Domain) and of the Set (which is synonym of Value Domain Subset) and Set List (which is defined in the same statement that defines the Value Domain Subset). In these cases, however, it should be made more evident where the artefact is defined. In other cases the comment is correct (e.g. N-Dimensional Value Domain, Code Item Relation) and the User and Reference Manuals should be aligned. As Luigi suggests, a systematic double check is also needed. It was agreed to make more explicit, for each VTL-DL Operator, which artefacts are defined through the Operator. I can provide for the changes in the next version of the UM and Luigi in the next version of the VTL-DL.