[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FpML-BP minutes 2007-08-01
- To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: FpML-BP minutes 2007-08-01
- From: "Marc Gratacos" <mgratacos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:44:33 -0400
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=piiKw5nvGRYaLrJEtf46svMuPklFzgCr6efYoET0RVdRGjWhZlZhm/KnrLbLFGSLuAmZBdRVHH9A3Uymn4nKU9CT1g+qzD443NhlUJY5xsIZfV7wZkbswNvkXjJOqckmwI6HIDdm9t3ufpdj0jtdRq3BVYEAnQWikrxKjvuq3xk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=Btolx+TtcRgpN1IBg6oIbg9Tf6DlZUxXWGuu8LqnpM7T0jLj0JG2sJeUn6r/6Ku3T76dUx1kskN0VvdS4PF+BMbJPVo5V0HuueejzUAm8aPw8+35CJ/Y+sVzF4btYSrVsSawqcaS165H/i3CDY/bD7z995jBH7IfTAdMw+ozyHI=
- Reply-to: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
BPWG
Participants
Marie-Paule Dumont (SWIFT)
Lucio Iida (BGI)
Pierre Lamy (GS)
Francoise Massin (SWIFT)
Banu Apers (SWIFT)
Brian Lynn (GEM)
Irina Yermakova (ISDA)
Marc Gratacos (ISDA), chair
Discussion
- Views for short-form confirmations
The idea is to use the views mechanism to separate the
schema representation of short and long form confirmations. Different working
groups apply different modelling approaches to the representation of short and
long form confirmations. By applying the views mechanism, the result should be
a simpler schema representation and with less optionality for both short and
long form confirmations.
Even though there was agreement among participants that this
is a very good idea. There were some issues that were pointed out:
- The introduction
of views for product representation adds a new dimension to the views. An
analysis is required to see what product representations are applicable to
what business process views. For example, is the brokerEquity
representation applicable for confirmation or only for reporting processes?
- The
implementation of this change needs to be evaluated since it would require
a change to the existing prototype (probably adding more namespaces) and
changes to the examples.
- There
may be other approaches to make a clearer distinction between long and
short form. This may involve an optional long form container for all
elements specific to long form. However, this would cause that related
elements are placed in different locations within the product
representation.
The agreement was to get additional feedback from the
Coordination Committee to see whether participants are interested in using
views to distinguish between short and long form confirmations.
- Trade Execution
The relationship with trade affirmation and between trade affirmation and
confirmation is not clear.
The participants in the meeting expressed that execution,
affirmation, and confirmation could be three separate processes. According to
BGI, the trade is executed, and then it gets validated in the affirmation process
before it is sent to a confirmation provider or to other recipient.
Additional input from institutions is necessary in order to have
a clear definition of the processes.
- Option Exercise/Expiry
It will be discussed it in the next meeting. Marc will circulate a proposal.
Please let me know if I missed any point. Thanks in advance.
We'll meet again in August 15.