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

[Václav Slavík]

On 24 Mar 2012, at 15:24, Václav Slavík wrote:
> In any case, this isn't a major issue, either approach works well. I think 
> that Vadim's version with an explicit 'age' attribute is better, because it's 
> more consistent, readable and editable, but I don't see any fundamental 
> problems with either of them.

For reference, this is how its RNC schema would look like (for smoking and 
gender axes only in addition to age/select duration; types.rnc has the custom 
type definitions from cell.rnc):

start =
    element table
        {basic_table
        |smoking_element
        |gender_element
        }

smoking_element =
    element smoking
        {element item
            {attribute for {smoking}
            ,(basic_table|gender_element)
            }+
        }

gender_element =
    element gender
        {element item
            {attribute for {gender}
            ,basic_table
            }+
        }

basic_table =
         aggregation_element
        |select_element
        |select_and_ultimate_element

aggregation_element =
    element aggregation {aggregation_content}

aggregation_content =
    element value
        {attribute age {age_int}
        ,proportion_double
        }+

select_element =
    element select
        {attribute period  {xsd:positiveInteger}
        ,element row
            {attribute age {age_int}
            ,element value
                {proportion_double
                }+
            }+
        }

select_and_ultimate_element =
    element select-and-ultimate
        {select_element
        ,element ultimate {aggregation_content}
        }

include "types.rnc"


Regards,
Vaclav