Veda2.0 Released!


FLO_share
#1
How can I transform a FX flo_share (as defined in the Base year template) into an UP share in a scenario file
Reply
#2
It is a little intricate, but possible:
  1. Create a new scenario with an UPDate table to collect the cases that you want to migrate, using *1 as the rule to get the original values.
  2. Export this scenario from Browse to create an INSert table with UP shares.
  3. In this scenario, use the rule used in #1 above to put zero for the FX shares, and introduce a parameter OFFEPS=1 for the zeros to be interpreted as NULLS.
    1. Search for "OFFEPS" in VEDASupport to know more about OFFEPS.

Reply
#3
If the FX share is zero, after the update, dos it not remain like that and how introduce a up share (different from zero)
Reply
#4
My proposal implies constructing two scenario files. The first one is temporary - only use is to collect the FX Share data to be introduced as an INS table for UP Share.
The second scenario file has three declarations:
  1. OFFEPS = 1
  2. FX Shares = 0
    1. #1 + #2 will delete the FX Shares.
  3. INS table with UP Shares.
Reply
#5
I would just filter out the FX bounds by using the TS filtering facility, by adding some 0-0 interpolation option  in a new scenario for the FX bounds to be filtered. Then by using TFM_FILL you could retrieve the FX bounds and convert them into UP bounds using TFM_INS, in the same scenario. 
This should be rather easy and it used to work, and should still work, unless VEDA-FE has been changed in the meantime.
Antti
Reply
#6
0-0 is a great idea and I confirm that it still works.
The main difference between INSert 0-0 FX Share and UPDate FX Share=0 + OFFEPS is that the former requires explicit identification of TimeSlice, Region and Commodity, while one can get away with just a process filter in the UPDate approach. Note that using CSET_SET + Top_Check can greatly simplify p-c identification for INS tables.
In this case one needs to identify all r-p-c anyway as there is an INS Share UP involved in the second step, so the 0-0 approach does not impose any additional burden.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)