Attendees ========= Andrew Jacobs, Handcoded Robert S, Brookpath Lyteck L, ISDA Marc G, ISDA Jason P, BGI Brian L, GEM Matthew R., JPM Regrets ======= Christian N, Message Automation Irina Y, ISDA Open Actions ============ Robert - will develop some examples based on Matthew's example scenarios, and will review this with Andrew. Hopes to produce something for next week. EDWG - Andrew P is working on MTF proposals. CDWG has agreed in principle to the MTF recommendations, still working on the details. Brian will look at list of "Empty" elements outside of CDWG scope. Implementation of vote on messaging =================================== We agreed that since there wasn't a strong consensus to change from 3 to 1 message for corrects/cancels, we will leave it as is. We agreed to add annotations to the schema to indicate whether a message is correctable or cancelable, and to check that the corresponding messages are present in the schema. We will consider whether to actually generate the correction messages once we've analyzed the message changes. Action: Brian will look into the syntax for the annotations, plus scripts to do the checking. For the vote to correlate messages based on business object identifiers, this is in progress via the MTF business object identification requirements, discussed later. For the message consolidations, we agreed to produce a summary of messages by business process and type (request, response, etc.) and use this a basis for recommending the messages to be consolidated. Lyteck will develop a spreadsheet to summarize this, based in part on the PDF of messages he circulated today. However, we need to group similar processes on different event types (e.g. notification vs. confirmation of post-trade events). Business object identification requirements =========================================== We discussed this document and agreed to its requirements, with a few minor adjustments to wording. See attached updated version. We decided to do a gap analysis of the existing FpML identification mechanisms vs. the requirements. The updated requirements doc also includes a preliminary version of the gap analysis, for comments. Next meeting ============ Friday April 25, usual time - review Lyteck's message categorization, review identification gap analysis, review Robert's proposed examples
Attachment:
Identification Requirements April 18 2008.doc
Description: MS-Word document