|
Unless anyone objects, we’ll
make the change by replacing generic references with typed references in FpML
version 5.0. Please get back to me or to the
list by COB Friday if you can any objections. Regards, Brian Lynn From: prwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Lynn Greetings, PRWG folks. It’s been a long time since we’ve been active in this group,
because no one has raised any issues that required our attention. (There
have been a few PRWG related issues raised against the FpML standard, but these
have been able to be dealt with without the whole group). Now there is an issue that requires us to take a look at
something. There has been an issue raised about our use of references
in the PRWG area. In some cases (e.g. the “objectReference” element) we
have references to objects that can be of a variety of types. For example, we
can have a valuation that references either a trade, a trade leg, or a basket
constituent. The problem is that for some tools (e.g. binding frameworks),
it can be difficult to process this part of the schema if the type of the
target is unknown. One solution might be to create an abstract base type
for all of the potential targets, but this is not necessarily practical.
(For example, trades, tradeIds, products, legs, and basket constituents would
all have to have the same base type). The other solution is to change the existing single element
reference (objectReference) to a choice of several elements, with each element
pointing to a different target type (or base type). For instance, you
could have a choice of tradeReference, legReference, constituentReference, etc. The second approach has been recommended by the Modeling
Task Force. While I’m not too keen on it personally, it does seem like it
may be the best solution to the problem. If adopted, this change would happen in 5.0. Does anyone have any comments on this proposed change? Regards, Brian Lynn |