Hi,
Using this excerpt as a context:
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:33:58 -0800
From: John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us>
Subject: Re: close books
To: Derek Atkins <warl...@mit.edu>
Cc: devel gnucash <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
Message-ID: <2b1f2747-854c-430c-8aaa-05637e30a...@ceridwen.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[...]
A KVP *is* better, but because it's better architecture: The closing-entry mark
would apply only to one transaction per year, would only be important to one
split in that transaction (the income/expense split; one wouldn't want to hide
the split from equity reports), and wouldn't have any applicability to any
transactions which don't touch income or expense accounts. Something of such
limited scope doesn't deserve a column.
Note that the KVP should be on the split, not the transaction, because many
income/expense reports don't need to look at the whole transaction, they just
need to total up the credits and debits shown in the splits occurring between
two dates.
Regards,
John Ralls
Let me ask your help as I work my way to a new understanding of the term
"transaction".
My formation long ago as a young accountant contained this understanding of a
transaction: it was the accounting expression of an activity that happened in
the physical world, which the accounting ledgers were tracking in their own
notation. For example, suppose the activity is buying a car using cash and
debt on 11/10/2010. The accounting transaction is that act of purchase. The
accounting notation was the language of debits and credits with accompanying
names describing the purpose of the monetary "buckets" or value holders.
Thus, in a journal, the transaction would be recorded similarly to this:
Debit
Credit
11/10/2010 New car 15,000
11/10/2010 New car loan
10,000
11/10/2010 Cash in bank
5,000
Above John says "...the KVP should be on the split, not the transaction,..."
but in a later follow-up
Derek says that the KVP should be on the transaction and not on the split,
noting further that the date is resident in the transaction and not the split.
Which of the above in GC terminology is the "transaction" and which the
"split"? What makes one of the parts of the above the "transaction" and the
others the splits? Can any one of the 3 parts be named the transaction be
different people? What keeps the transaction from being arbitrarily identified?
In my mind all three parts are splits and there is no transaction unless all
three are there with debits and credits in balance. If one or two parts are
missing, the transaction is said to be incomplete or broken, because it would
not balance.
Clearly, GC has a different sense of naming these elements and it is important
to include in basic documentation a clear discussion of the terminology as used
in the GC world and as used in the Accounting world. I am not interested
particularly in changing GC usage. I am interested in understanding clearly
how developers see things and why things are perceived that way. Once I see
that perspective, then the documentation as presently written will become
clearer, at least to this accountant, and I expect others in the Users' List.
Thanks to all who can help me with this.
Tom
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
