|
I am no longer in Derivatives.
Can I be removed from this mailing list? Thanks From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Brian Lynn 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: |