[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Brian
Good idea, the present content model in FpML-4-2-rec allows a valuationSet
within TradeValuationItem without any means of identifying what it relates
to, since both partyTradeIdentifier and trade occur 0 to unbounded
Downside is that this breaks document backwards compatibility within the
4.x series, because you are introducing new mandatory content
Andrew Parry
+44 20 7325 1486
IBML Product Manager
http://ibml.jpmorgan.com
"Brian Lynn" <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: prwg@xxxxxxxx
14/03/2007 22:24
Please respond to
prwg@xxxxxxxx
To
<prwg@xxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Unless I hear otherwise, I’ll recommend to change the schema to make trade
valuation item contain a choice between 1 or more partyTradeIdentifiers
and 1 trade. I think this should be done in 4.3, given that 4.2 is in
trial…
Comments welcome.
From: prwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Lynn
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:34 AM
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Sorry not to reply earlier …
I didn’t originally develop this structure, and I don’t have any great
answers for you.
On the face of it, there seems to need to be only one trade per trade
valuation item. There could be multiple partyTradeIdentifiers identifying
the same trade.
Does anyone have any objection to changing the content model to eliminate
the possibility of including
1) more than one trade per trade valuation item, and
2) both a trade and a partyTradeIdentifier?
If not, we need to think about when/how to implement, since this has been
in since 4.1 and removing this flexibility is arguably not backwards
compatible …. We could declare it an error but theoretically it should be
approved by the Stds Committee.
- Brian
From: prwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:50 AM
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Brian,
Any thoughts on this? See below.
Thanks,
Marc
From: prwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:38 PM
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Brian,
Maybe I am missing something but I am looking at the content of
TradeValuationItem and I don't understand its content model. Why do we
have trade with maxOccurs="unbounded"? Shouldn't we have a single trade
element only?
In addition, shouldn't we have a choice between partyTradeIdentifier and
trade?
<xsd:complexType name="TradeValuationItem">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">A type used in trade valuation enquiry
messages which relates a trade identifier to its current
value.</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="partyTradeIdentifier" type="PartyTradeIdentifier"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">One or more trade identifiers needed
to uniquely identify a trade.</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="trade" type="Trade" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">Fully-described trades whose values
are reported.</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element ref="valuationSet">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">The trade
valuation.</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
From: prwg@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Lynn
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 18:30
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
The issue says that the TradeValuationItem should probably have only one
partyTradeIdentifier, or there should be a rule that if there is more than
one partyTradeIdentifier, it should refer to the same trade.
The existing documentation on that item says, “One or more trade
identifiers needed to uniquely identify a trade.” This implies that the
multiple trade IDs are for the same trade. I’m not sure if it’s possible
to create a rule that enforces this.
Should we update the documentation on the element to make this more
explicit?
- Brian
From: prwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:20 AM
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VALU TradeValuationItem
Brian,
See question posted in the issues list:
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=204
Kind Regards,
-Marc
+13472846531
**************************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in either this email and, if applicable, the
attachment, are confidential and are intended only for the recipient. The
contents of either the email or the attachment may not be disclosed or
used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us by e-mail at isda@xxxxxxxx then delete the e-mail and all
attachments and any copies thereof. This communication is part of an ISDA
process and is not intended for unauthorized use or distribution.
**************************************************************************************************************************
-----------------------------------------
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not
intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of
any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any
transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not
warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change
without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not
necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries
and affiliates.
This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any
attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it
is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase &
Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss
or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this
transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and
destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard
copy format. Thank you.
Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/terms for important
disclosures under the Terms of Use.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe prwg youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_prwgmail/threads.html