Re: [office-comment] ODFF: more suggestions: CORREL

Hi Eike

> > NumberSequence:
<snip>
> >  - 6.2.6 makes no reference to how the sequence is generated - 
> > rows before columns? columns before rows? Order is vital for 
> > example in CORREL.
> 
> Put on the TODO list. However, in case of CORREL(), if both sequences
> are evaluated in equal order, there should be no difference whether it
> is row-wise or column-wise, or am I mislead?

Yes, quite right, but I think the order should be specified in case an 
enthusiastic application decided to do it different ways for x and y, 
perhaps for some optimisation reason.


> > CORREL:
> >  - NumberSequence could be generated by ignoring eg text.
> 
> Like it is defined in "Conversion to NumberSequence".

Aha! yes, that was what I meant ;), but this is the confusion between 
NumberSequence and Conversion to NumberSequence again:

A NumberSequence is 'converted' to a NumberSequence by "Conversion to 
NumberSequence" - doesn't this need a re-think? Don't they at least need 
different names, eg -

A SomethingSequence is 'converted' to a NumberSequence by "Conversion to 
NumberSequence" - that works OK? Or

A NumberSequence is 'converted' by a specified method (not to be called 
"Conversion to NumberSequence")...?

The latter gets my vote - having NumberSequence as a type, and the 
conversion specified in the type definition.

If you fancy that, I could work on some revised text over Christmas?

====

By the way, a minor detail, PEARSON doesn't have CORREL under 'See 
also'. CORREL does have PEARSON.


David