Difference between GL account type and class

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Difference between GL account type and class

Jacopo Cappellato
What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the
class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?

In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my
guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same
that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?

Thanks,

Jacopo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between GL account type and class

Jim Barrows
That's my assumption.  I asked the exact same question some time ago,
and got a nothing as a response.

Very frustrating.

I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset,
Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away.
That way we're in compliance with the book.

An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of
accounts receivable.  It's also an Asset,

We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL  account to put
a transaction into.  I think this is silly.. if you can get the type,
you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple
accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit
to.  So which one do you put it into?  The service I was just looking
at doesn't go any further.

It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it.

On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the
> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?
>
> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my
> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same
> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacopo
>



--
James A Barrows
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between GL account type and class

Jacopo Cappellato
Jim,

we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to help:
if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and write it.

You know what?
After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of
people's complaints...

Jacopo


Jim Barrows wrote:

> That's my assumption.  I asked the exact same question some time ago,
> and got a nothing as a response.
>
> Very frustrating.
>
> I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset,
> Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away.
> That way we're in compliance with the book.
>
> An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of
> accounts receivable.  It's also an Asset,
>
> We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL  account to put
> a transaction into.  I think this is silly.. if you can get the type,
> you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple
> accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit
> to.  So which one do you put it into?  The service I was just looking
> at doesn't go any further.
>
> It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it.
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the
>> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?
>>
>> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my
>> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same
>> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between GL account type and class

Jim Barrows
I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of
an answer.
And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption
was my assumption.  I also don't consider the comment "Very
Frustrating" to be a complaint.  It's a statement of fact.

The rest was just an idea to be kicked around.  However, after further
looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do.  We use
both.  I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use
either class or type to determine which account a transaction should
go into if no account is provided.  A couple of other places where we
use that extra information to do the same type of thing.

I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a
confirmation of the assumption.  No documentation is better then bad
documentation.

On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jim,
>
> we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to help:
> if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and write it.
>
> You know what?
> After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of
> people's complaints...
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> Jim Barrows wrote:
> > That's my assumption.  I asked the exact same question some time ago,
> > and got a nothing as a response.
> >
> > Very frustrating.
> >
> > I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset,
> > Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away.
> > That way we're in compliance with the book.
> >
> > An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of
> > accounts receivable.  It's also an Asset,
> >
> > We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL  account to put
> > a transaction into.  I think this is silly.. if you can get the type,
> > you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple
> > accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit
> > to.  So which one do you put it into?  The service I was just looking
> > at doesn't go any further.
> >
> > It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it.
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the
> >> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?
> >>
> >> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my
> >> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same
> >> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--
James A Barrows
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between GL account type and class

David E Jones

A complaint is a complaint, and doesn't usually get you very far in a  
collaborative environment. Complaining in any form basically says that  
someone else created a problem and that person should solve it... so  
whoever that is: get on it already! You're either helping to create  
the software or you're not. If you are, then any complaint you have is  
technically a complaint against a group that includes yourself, and  
hence doesn't make much sense... That may bring you around to wanting  
to make changes to this, which brings you to contribution guidelines  
and good ways of working with other people and an existing code base  
(whether it be open source or not...). The main one I'm thinking of is  
the Rule #2: read before you write, ie understand something before you  
desire to change it (which I guess is what you're getting at with your  
first question). There are other interesting and helpful points here:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I think that's what Jacopo is referring to.

As for this question, I don't remember it ever being asked (perhaps it  
was another related question though, phrased differently or  
something?). Of course, there are hundreds of questions every week  
going through the mailing lists and NO paid support staff (just people  
in their "spare" time helping out), so such questions are sometimes  
either lost or not considered as a high a priority as other active  
issues and questions that could use attention... and there are ALWAYS  
more issues and questions than one has time to work through completely.

==================================

In any case, the difference between a GlAccount class and type is that  
they are independent, ie like two dimensions on a graph. Some  
combinations of them don't make sense and they are certainly meant to  
be used together.

The best way to understand them, as with many such entities that are  
concerned with types of records that require different code behavior,  
is to look at the seed data for the entity(ies). In this case that  
file is AccountingTypeData.xml. If you have looked at that and it  
doesn't make sense then maybe the best next step is to write a more  
detailed question to say what makes sense and what seems to conflict,  
and then maybe someone can be more helpful, instead of just guessing  
about what you're trying to find.

At a high level you can see the different top-level classes and types,  
ie the ones with no parentClassId or parentTypeId. That is more  
helpful for the class as the classes are used in the posting routines  
to determine how an account should be treated (ie whether it is a  
debit or credit account, mainly).

One thing that might make understanding these more difficult is  
misunderstanding their intent, and that seems to be the case with your  
comment about deciding how to determine an account to post to. The  
types and classes are NOT meant for that, there are other entities for  
that depending on where the information is coming from. For example  
when posting an accounting transaction based on an invoice you would  
look up the GlAccounts to use based on the internal organization the  
invoice is related to, and the InvoiceItemType for each item, and for  
some items like those for selling a product you would also try to use  
the productId to look up the glAccountId to use. If you browse around  
these entities you'll see a bunch of defined relationships between  
them for this purpose.

-David


On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Jim Barrows wrote:

> I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of
> an answer.
> And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption
> was my assumption.  I also don't consider the comment "Very
> Frustrating" to be a complaint.  It's a statement of fact.
>
> The rest was just an idea to be kicked around.  However, after further
> looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do.  We use
> both.  I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use
> either class or type to determine which account a transaction should
> go into if no account is provided.  A couple of other places where we
> use that extra information to do the same type of thing.
>
> I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a
> confirmation of the assumption.  No documentation is better then bad
> documentation.
>
> On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to  
>> help:
>> if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and  
>> write it.
>>
>> You know what?
>> After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of
>> people's complaints...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> Jim Barrows wrote:
>>> That's my assumption.  I asked the exact same question some time  
>>> ago,
>>> and got a nothing as a response.
>>>
>>> Very frustrating.
>>>
>>> I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense,  
>>> Asset,
>>> Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away.
>>> That way we're in compliance with the book.
>>>
>>> An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of
>>> accounts receivable.  It's also an Asset,
>>>
>>> We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL  account to  
>>> put
>>> a transaction into.  I think this is silly.. if you can get the  
>>> type,
>>> you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple
>>> accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit
>>> to.  So which one do you put it into?  The service I was just  
>>> looking
>>> at doesn't go any further.
>>>
>>> It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on  
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and  
>>>> the
>>>> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?
>>>>
>>>> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes  
>>>> but my
>>>> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the  
>>>> same
>>>> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James A Barrows


smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Difference between GL account type and class

Yousef Shemisa
David and Jacopo,

You both never fail to amaze me with the time and care taken to craft your
answers to OfBizian's questions - and even their inane rants (complaints? -
hehe). I can't thank you enough and wanted to wish you guys and the rest of
the list a very joyous Holiday Season and a Happy New Year!

All the best,
-Yousef Shemisa

-----Original Message-----
From: David E Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 13:07
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Difference between GL account type and class


A complaint is a complaint, and doesn't usually get you very far in a
collaborative environment. Complaining in any form basically says that
someone else created a problem and that person should solve it... so whoever
that is: get on it already! You're either helping to create the software or
you're not. If you are, then any complaint you have is technically a
complaint against a group that includes yourself, and hence doesn't make
much sense... That may bring you around to wanting to make changes to this,
which brings you to contribution guidelines and good ways of working with
other people and an existing code base (whether it be open source or
not...). The main one I'm thinking of is the Rule #2: read before you write,
ie understand something before you desire to change it (which I guess is
what you're getting at with your first question). There are other
interesting and helpful points here:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

I think that's what Jacopo is referring to.

As for this question, I don't remember it ever being asked (perhaps it was
another related question though, phrased differently or something?). Of
course, there are hundreds of questions every week going through the mailing
lists and NO paid support staff (just people in their "spare" time helping
out), so such questions are sometimes either lost or not considered as a
high a priority as other active issues and questions that could use
attention... and there are ALWAYS more issues and questions than one has
time to work through completely.

==================================

In any case, the difference between a GlAccount class and type is that they
are independent, ie like two dimensions on a graph. Some combinations of
them don't make sense and they are certainly meant to be used together.

The best way to understand them, as with many such entities that are
concerned with types of records that require different code behavior, is to
look at the seed data for the entity(ies). In this case that file is
AccountingTypeData.xml. If you have looked at that and it doesn't make sense
then maybe the best next step is to write a more detailed question to say
what makes sense and what seems to conflict, and then maybe someone can be
more helpful, instead of just guessing about what you're trying to find.

At a high level you can see the different top-level classes and types, ie
the ones with no parentClassId or parentTypeId. That is more helpful for the
class as the classes are used in the posting routines to determine how an
account should be treated (ie whether it is a debit or credit account,
mainly).

One thing that might make understanding these more difficult is
misunderstanding their intent, and that seems to be the case with your
comment about deciding how to determine an account to post to. The types and
classes are NOT meant for that, there are other entities for that depending
on where the information is coming from. For example when posting an
accounting transaction based on an invoice you would look up the GlAccounts
to use based on the internal organization the invoice is related to, and the
InvoiceItemType for each item, and for some items like those for selling a
product you would also try to use the productId to look up the glAccountId
to use. If you browse around these entities you'll see a bunch of defined
relationships between them for this purpose.

-David


On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Jim Barrows wrote:

> I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of
> an answer.
> And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption
> was my assumption.  I also don't consider the comment "Very
> Frustrating" to be a complaint.  It's a statement of fact.
>
> The rest was just an idea to be kicked around.  However, after further
> looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do.  We use
> both.  I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use
> either class or type to determine which account a transaction should
> go into if no account is provided.  A couple of other places where we
> use that extra information to do the same type of thing.
>
> I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a
> confirmation of the assumption.  No documentation is better then bad
> documentation.
>
> On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to
>> help:
>> if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and
>> write it.
>>
>> You know what?
>> After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of
>> people's complaints...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> Jim Barrows wrote:
>>> That's my assumption.  I asked the exact same question some time
>>> ago, and got a nothing as a response.
>>>
>>> Very frustrating.
>>>
>>> I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense,
>>> Asset, Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown
>>> away.
>>> That way we're in compliance with the book.
>>>
>>> An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of
>>> accounts receivable.  It's also an Asset,
>>>
>>> We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL  account to
>>> put a transaction into.  I think this is silly.. if you can get the
>>> type, you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple
>>> accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit
>>> to.  So which one do you put it into?  The service I was just
>>> looking at doesn't go any further.
>>>
>>> It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and
>>>> the class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)?
>>>>
>>>> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but
>>>> my guess is that the information that we store in the class is the
>>>> same that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James A Barrows



begin 666 smime.p7s
M,( &"2J&2(;W#0$'`J" ,( "`0$Q"S )!@4K#@,"&@4`,( &"2J&2(;W#0$'
M`0``H((/:3""!#(P@@,:H ,"`0("`0$P#08)*H9(AO<-`0$%!0`P>S$+, D&
M`U4$!A,"1T(Q&S 9!@-5! @,$D=R96%T97(@36%N8VAE<W1E<C$0, X&`U4$
M!PP'4V%L9F]R9#$:,!@&`U4$"@P10V]M;V1O($-!($QI;6ET960Q(3 ?!@-5
M! ,,&$%!02!#97)T:69I8V%T92!397)V:6-E<S >%PTP-# Q,#$P,# P,#!:
M%PTR.#$R,S$R,S4Y-3E:,'LQ"S )!@-5! 83`D=",1LP&08#500(#!)'<F5A
M=&5R($UA;F-H97-T97(Q$# .!@-5! <,!U-A;&9O<F0Q&C 8!@-5! H,$4-O
M;6]D;R!#02!,:6UI=&5D,2$P'P8#500##!A!04$@0V5R=&EF:6-A=&4@4V5R
M=FEC97,P@@$B, T&"2J&2(;W#0$!`04``X(!#P`P@@$*`H(!`0"^0)WT;N'J
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MBB7'P-V=YC5H$""=C]C>TL.$G U>Z"_)`@,!``&C@< P@;TP'08#51T.!!8$
M%* 1"B,^EO$'[.*O*>^"I7_0,*2T, X&`U4=#P$!_P0$`P(!!C /!@-5'1,!
M`?\$!3 #`0'_,'L&`U4='P1T,'(P.* VH#2&,FAT=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O
M8V$N8V]M+T%!04-E<G1I9FEC871E4V5R=FEC97,N8W)L,#:@-* RAC!H='1P
M.B\O8W)L+F-O;6]D;RYN970O04%!0V5R=&EF:6-A=&5397)V:6-E<RYC<FPP
M#08)*H9(AO<-`0$%!0`#@@$!``A6_ +PF^C_I/K6>\9$@,Y/Q,7V`%C,IK:\
M%$EH!';HYNY=[ (/8-:-4!A/)DX!X^:PI>Z_O'140;_]_!*XQT]:](E@!7]@
MMP5*\_;QPK_$N72&MBU]:\S2\T;=+\;@:L/#- ,L?9;=6L(.IPJ9P06+JPPO
M\UPZSVPW50F'WE- ;%CO_+:K96X$]AO</.!:%<:>V?%92# A90-L[.DA<^R;
M`Z'@-ZV@%1B/^KH"SJ<LJ1 3+-3E"":K(I=@^)!>=-2BFE.]\JEHX*)NPM=L
ML:,/GK_K:.=6\J[RXRLX.@F!M6N%U[XM[3\:M[)CXO5B+(+4:@!!4/$Y@Y^5
MZ3:6F&XP@@3=,((#Q: #`@$"`A!QDOOF&5^L31*%='$THABG, T&"2J&2(;W
M#0$!!04`,'LQ"S )!@-5! 83`D=",1LP&08#500(#!)'<F5A=&5R($UA;F-H
M97-T97(Q$# .!@-5! <,!U-A;&9O<F0Q&C 8!@-5! H,$4-O;6]D;R!#02!,
M:6UI=&5D,2$P'P8#500##!A!04$@0V5R=&EF:6-A=&4@4V5R=FEC97,P'A<-
M,#0P,3 Q,# P,# P6A<-,C@Q,C,Q,C,U.34Y6C"!KC$+, D&`U4$!A,"55,Q
M"S )!@-5! @3`E54,1<P%08#500'$PY386QT($QA:V4@0VET>3$>,!P&`U4$
M"A,55&AE(%5315)44E535"!.971W;W)K,2$P'P8#500+$QAH='1P.B\O=W=W
M+G5S97)T<G5S="YC;VTQ-C T!@-5! ,3+5543BU54T521FER<W0M0VQI96YT
M($%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N(&%N9"!%;6%I;#""`2(P#08)*H9(AO<-`0$!!0`#
M@@$/`#""`0H"@@$!`+(YA:3R?:M!.V)&-Z[-P6!UO#EE^4H:1Z*YS$C,:IC5
M3349N:1"Y<Y)XHHO'GS2,0?'3K2#9)TN*=6B9,2%O851-7FD3FB0>QQZI)*H
M%_*8%?*3S,FD,I6[#$\PO9B@"XOE;ANB1OIXO*)OJUE>I2_/RMIMJB_KK*&S
M:JJW+F<UBWGA'FF(XN9&S:"EZKX+SG8Z>@Z;ZOS:)UL]<Q\BYDAAQDSS:;&H
M+ANVU#$@++R"BHZD#J77B4/\%EJO'7'7$5G:NH<-K_KSX<+PI,5GC-;65#K>
M"J2Z`W>S9<C]'M-T8JH8RFB3'J&%?O5'9<OX35<H=-(T_S"V[O9B,!2,+.L"
M`P$``:."`2<P@@$C,!\&`U4=(P08,!: %* 1"B,^EO$'[.*O*>^"I7_0,*2T
M,!T&`U4=#@06!!2)@F=]Q)TF< !+M%!(?-X]K@1N?3 .!@-5'0\!`?\$! ,"
M`08P#P8#51T3`0'_! 4P`P$!_S =!@-5'24$%C 4!@@K!@$%!0<#`@8(*P8!
M!04'`P0P$08#51T@! HP"# &!@15'2 `,'L&`U4='P1T,'(P.* VH#2&,FAT
M=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O8V$N8V]M+T%!04-E<G1I9FEC871E4V5R=FEC97,N
M8W)L,#:@-* RAC!H='1P.B\O8W)L+F-O;6]D;RYN970O04%!0V5R=&EF:6-A
M=&5397)V:6-E<RYC<FPP$08)8(9(`8;X0@$!! 0#`@$&, T&"2J&2(;W#0$!
M!04``X(!`0"=E<L\N'ZE"<0>OPO"QW:..3R4QA"J3PS)X*N$78E4X&4[\VT<
M?#<L)51?EB'\-X21G17<%$^!SU0=:VQ%8,<M^9=13/EFRCR@@HRFR/#BZ=1*
M^>P_5LG==HS#@@%/; #S'AIA= 1'`ZG&0%>1O&4BQ2=G3U?;9%K9C1^ZAB_T
M!JZ<:>WI],\I%]C@2I\:("^73%&[1@?$BC=.(.,),6C'GL2+G>A^$;PR:!"6
M$9A$V"I18$V(ZW0ZWT,&,L@Y5HPZ$5+30:1#`_3M[S,GVSG@%$XFR=CU.>*)
MN)-=MRDF0>JSFZZ#_'=URNC*M?[B94IC/D3$T,->AW.IF!RO?Q5_,((&3C""
M!3:@`P(!`@(0>*LDUO"(\J/*]+9"38<"4S -!@DJADB&]PT!`04%`#"!KC$+
M, D&`U4$!A,"55,Q"S )!@-5! @3`E54,1<P%08#500'$PY386QT($QA:V4@
M0VET>3$>,!P&`U4$"A,55&AE(%5315)44E535"!.971W;W)K,2$P'P8#500+
M$QAH='1P.B\O=W=W+G5S97)T<G5S="YC;VTQ-C T!@-5! ,3+5543BU54T52
M1FER<W0M0VQI96YT($%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N(&%N9"!%;6%I;# >%PTP-S$P
M,3 P,# P,#!:%PTP.#$P,#DR,S4Y-3E:,('E,34P,P8#500+$RQ#;VUO9&\@
M5')U<W0@3F5T=V]R:R M(%!%4E-/3D$@3D]4(%9!3$E$051%1#%&,$0&`U4$
M"Q,]5&5R;7,@86YD($-O;F1I=&EO;G,@;V8@=7-E.B!H='1P.B\O=W=W+F-O
M;6]D;RYN970O<F5P;W-I=&]R>3$?,!T&`U4$"Q,6*&,I,C P,R!#;VUO9&\@
M3&EM:71E9#$7,!4&`U4$`Q,.66]U<V5F(%-H96UI<V$Q*C H!@DJADB&]PT!
M"0$6&WES:&5M:7-A0&%C8W5R871E86QW87ES+F-O;3""`2(P#08)*H9(AO<-
M`0$!!0`#@@$/`#""`0H"@@$!`/=CHQO$L"3W0B-4-8.CKU&X>P1V]#I\'YC+
MGOHT6\^(S%&B-R H(1 K9XV'I9MB392DSFXO^OW\A2!P/R,J!6&8C/!"!%$&
M/2MT1\830A8?JXIDM#)Z?22:O)]6"L8'%'-6?A8A^3*F:SMF%.8E.TGRH!9K
M(_P'E6RW+K$_/NEZ0[\@=4\W7MHM?EMS>Z^0T_APN#S])5;%`49LPUKK[Z:*
M8L6.4HD/[<###2Q<Y_1%V0QFK S>L7W@V>?LIFBP8>AK`IV?>R 84U,S9PO:
M!;YT/M>*UVC=?:9E4^T'1>@ZO5@MIM"0#Q=^VBEASGAG"?CH$!S+SB'U8T]W
M>S4\Z2$"`P$``:."`BTP@@(I,!\&`U4=(P08,!: %(F"9WW$G29P`$NT4$A\
MWCVN!&Y],!T&`U4=#@06!!0]Z91V0GE/?DY]5DV;9BY3,# W!C .!@-5'0\!
M`?\$! ,"!: P# 8#51T3`0'_! (P`# @!@-5'24$&3 7!@@K!@$%!0<#! 8+
M*P8!! &R,0$#!0(P$08)8(9(`8;X0@$!! 0#`@4@,$8&`U4=( 0_,#TP.P8,
M*P8!! &R,0$"`0$!,"LP*08(*P8!!04'`@$6'6AT='!S.B\O<V5C=7)E+F-O
M;6]D;RYN970O0U!3,(&E!@-5'1\$@9TP@9HP3*!*H$B&1FAT=' Z+R]C<FPN
M8V]M;V1O8V$N8V]M+U543BU54T521FER<W0M0VQI96YT075T:&5N=&EC871I
M;VYA;F1%;6%I;"YC<FPP2J!(H$:&1&AT=' Z+R]C<FPN8V]M;V1O+FYE="]5
M5$XM55-%4D9I<G-T+4-L:65N=$%U=&AE;G1I8V%T:6]N86YD16UA:6PN8W)L
M,'P&""L&`04%!P$!!' P;C V!@@K!@$%!0<P`H8J:'1T<#HO+V-R="YC;VUO
M9&]C82YC;VTO551.04%!0VQI96YT0T$N8W)T,#0&""L&`04%!S "ABAH='1P
M.B\O8W)T+F-O;6]D;RYN970O551.04%!0VQI96YT0T$N8W)T,"8&`U4=$00?
M,!V!&WES:&5M:7-A0&%C8W5R871E86QW87ES+F-O;3 -!@DJADB&]PT!`04%
M``."`0$`3? 1T&PG+%5IK60<59@CB=%30T3_;NRA<@6;=H0ODC]M:^_M,_A5
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M`@$!,('#,(&N,0LP"08#500&$P)54S$+, D&`U4$"!,"550Q%S 5!@-5! <3
M#E-A;'0@3&%K92!#:71Y,1XP' 8#500*$Q54:&4@55-%4E1255-4($YE='=O
M<FLQ(3 ?!@-5! L3&&AT=' Z+R]W=W<N=7-E<G1R=7-T+F-O;3$V,#0&`U4$
M`Q,M551.+55315)&:7)S="U#;&EE;G0@075T:&5N=&EC871I;VX@86YD($5M
M86EL`A!XJR36\(CRH\KTMD)-AP)3, D&!2L.`P(:!0"@@@)V,!@&"2J&2(;W
M#0$)`S$+!@DJADB&]PT!!P$P' 8)*H9(AO<-`0D%,0\7#3 W,3(Q-S(R-30R
M,5HP(P8)*H9(AO<-`0D$,18$%,BTB;J-MJNVD%.(-,N95>YS^?0M,&<&"2J&
M2(;W#0$)#S%:,%@P"@8(*H9(AO<-`P<P#@8(*H9(AO<-`P("`@" , T&""J&
M2(;W#0,"`@% , <&!2L.`P(', T&""J&2(;W#0,"`@$H, <&!2L.`P(:, H&
M""J&2(;W#0(%,('4!@DK!@$$`8(W$ 0Q@<8P@<,P@:XQ"S )!@-5! 83`E53
M,0LP"08#500($P)55#$7,!4&`U4$!Q,.4V%L="!,86ME($-I='DQ'C <!@-5
M! H3%51H92!54T525%)54U0@3F5T=V]R:S$A,!\&`U4$"Q,8:'1T<#HO+W=W
M=RYU<V5R=')U<W0N8V]M,38P- 8#500#$RU55$XM55-%4D9I<G-T+4-L:65N
M="!!=71H96YT:6-A=&EO;B!A;F0@16UA:6P"$'BK)-;PB/*CRO2V0DV'`E,P
M@=8&"RJ&2(;W#0$)$ (+,8'&H('#,(&N,0LP"08#500&$P)54S$+, D&`U4$
M"!,"550Q%S 5!@-5! <3#E-A;'0@3&%K92!#:71Y,1XP' 8#500*$Q54:&4@
M55-%4E1255-4($YE='=O<FLQ(3 ?!@-5! L3&&AT=' Z+R]W=W<N=7-E<G1R
M=7-T+F-O;3$V,#0&`U4$`Q,M551.+55315)&:7)S="U#;&EE;G0@075T:&5N
M=&EC871I;VX@86YD($5M86EL`A!XJR36\(CRH\KTMD)-AP)3, T&"2J&2(;W
M#0$!`04`!((!`.\..6>?`, 49Q5X=VBH60O%3VGHIZ>05B'+6L_/G>)(Y2L%
MZXL8CAT3]Y8J5(%*F&S=_4_)NP7 @^1,R0^7*HJ9IHH\F(@__>R$$7DO?0CL
MXQ>#?B(!)KL"VI46'P%V'+O'@(E1,W+3,S[ZTT2DVS,YEPOQE#<#89ES'>@.
M4?><;1<<5WKO<:+HK_#!HEV.-^"9.WP*OB#81BQI/_&=9^N#;9\4[22Y?XA+
MZM88BFU/,%#1ZDR?<.JJ/]Z>WR%7^4_>NK<0$B]D8ND\H^;S9=Q?$BX^%LC\
MWNVI3M `HQB<L0\%Y= =6(;5/A.E#B>J_*+$00044_JQ8\6R-;G"ZL,`````
"````
`
end