[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FpML-VAL Syntax
All,
A number of suggested improvements to the current validation rules introduce a different approach from how the rules are currenty defined. As example, the way contexts are stated in this new approach is much more precise containing evaluations and closer to a formal implementation but it moves away from the current simple pseudo-english expressions.
Context: BrokerEquityOption (complex type)[fn:exists(numberOfOptions)][exists(equityPremium/paymentAmount)][exists(equityPremium/pricePerOption)][val:same-currency((equityPremium/paymentAmount,equityPremium/pricePerOption))]
eqd-25 (Mandatory)
equityPremium/pricePerOption/amount * numberOfOptions eq equityPremium/paymentAmount/amount.
Comment: This is equivalent to eqd-20, but for brokerEquityOption, where there is no optionEntitlement.
I'd like to ask the group how we should express rules going forward.
Kind Regards,
Marc
**************************************************************************************************************************
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.
**************************************************************************************************************************