Semantically I think this is not on the same level as the other “proportion kinds”, since it doesn’t represent a kind, but a format, where the same values can be recorded as numerator (3) and denominator (2) with proportion kind “fraction” and will mean the same thing. IMO “integer fraction” doesn’t even change the meaning or interpretation of the fraction, while other “proportion kinds” do.
My question is if the “integer fraction” really belongs to a “proportion kind” or should be somewhere else on the specs? I guess this tried to solve a use case and it was a shorthand to represent this format as a proportion kind.
But I think “fraction” makes the values of the DV_PROPORTION (numerator, denominator) to be interpreted differently from other proportion kinds (percent, unary, ratio). My point is “fraction” and “integer fraction” have no real semantic differences, and “integer fraction” is just for visual representation.
But following the same reasoning you could say that “integer fraction” makes the values to be interpreted differently from percert, unary or ratio, and has no real semantic difference, thus “fraction” being only a visual representation of “integer fraction”
Exactly, “fraction” and “integer fraction” are the same thing semantically, but in the specs, the “integer fraction” the only one that defines a specific format, “fraction” does not specifies a format, just the fraction semantics for the DV_PROPORTION. That is the only difference.
