|
At last week’s meeting I said that I would send an
email describing what I had found with the different payment message types, to
show how Matt’s proposed payment type extension might fit in. There are a couple of existing similar payment types in FpML
that should be kept a consistent as possible. I’ve omitted the
annotations for clarity: SimplePayment – in fpml-shared.xsd <xsd:complexType
name="SimplePayment"> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:group
ref="PayerReceiver.model"/> <xsd:element
name="paymentAmount" type="Money"/> <xsd:element
name="paymentDate" type="AdjustableOrRelativeAndAdjustedDate"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> PaymentMatching – fpml-reconciliation.xsd
– this is the basis of Matt’s proposal. <xsd:complexType
name="PaymentMatching"> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element
name="identifier" type="PaymentId"/> <xsd:group
ref="PayerReceiver.model"/> <xsd:element
name="paymentAmount" type="Money"/> <xsd:element
name="calculationDetails" type="CalculationDetails"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> Matt proposes to add “adjustedPaymentDate” to
the Payment Matching structure. To keep these as similar as possible, to be consistent with
the existing types: 1)
the payment date should appear after the payment amount
2)
to make it more consistent with SimplePayment, it
should perhaps be called “paymentDate” and allow adjustable dates
as well as or instead of just adjusted payment dates. (we should perhaps
discuss this) 3)
there’s some opportunity for reusing the
definitions. Some possibilities include: |