RE: FpML-VAL Proposal for Validation Rule Specification

Re: Q1 (context within rule)… Ok will change layout as instructed

Re: Q2 (functions)

Can a reference to a function be written as part of the rule definition?

shared-24 (Mandatory)

Context: RoutingIds (complex type)

routingId must be unique and same-routingId must be true

Comment: Each routingId is unique within a set of routing Ids.

or is it always a condition? (Which we can put in brackets, like eqd-19… and almost like what is shown in my previous zip, reattached)

shared-24 (Mandatory)

Context: RoutingIds (complex type) [same-routingId]

routingId must be unique.

Comment: Each routingId is unique within a set of routing Ids.

Or perhaps explicitly state what the function should return:

shared-24 (Mandatory)

Context: RoutingIds (complex type) [same-routingId is true]

routingId must be unique.

Comment: Each routingId is unique within a set of routing Ids.

Best, Lyteck

From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark.a.addison@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:45 AM
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VAL Proposal for Validation Rule Specification

Qu 1
The context is part of the rule, because the rule may apply for a number of contexts.
There are reasons for this change: first, if the context is the rule "container," then it would be necessary to repeat the rule in each context;
Second, because the application of a rule may be further qualified by a condition, the it's necessary to list all contexts and each conditional clause for that context, together with the rule.
NB the table listing each context and a link to the rules in which that context is present should mitigate any concerns over this layout change.

Qu 2 same-currency appears in eqd-19, eqd-20 & eqd-25, which I now realise on reflection looking at existing rules is a pre-condition.
Do you need another function to be written for some other rule?

Best Regards,

Mark.

"Lyteck Lynhiavu" <LLynhiavu@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: valwg@xxxxxxxx

04/06/2008 22:01

Please respond to
valwg@xxxxxxxx

To	<valwg@xxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: FpML-VAL Proposal for Validation Rule Specification

Please unzip and see XML source (some new tags) and HTML output. Is it the desired output? (in particular, take a look at functions, and conditions)

Shared-24 implemented as per http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=723 (includes 1 function)
Shared-25 implemented as per http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=724
Shared-25-test test rule with extra global condition “ISDA-3000” and extra local condition (“<10000”)

(questions 1 and 2 still hold below)

Thanks, Lyteck

From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lyteck Lynhiavu
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:50 PM
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VAL Proposal for Validation Rule Specification

I have a couple of questions regarding the layout of the new rules specification:

Question 1: is the context now part of the rule, as shown in the following sample (excerpt from Marc A word document)

cd-3 (Mandatory)

Context: Trade (complex type) [ISDA1999] [the element documentation/contractualSupplement exists]

The content of documentation/contractualTermsSupplement/type must not begin with the string ISDA2003Credit

Test cases: [Valid] [Invalid]

As it stands today, many rules can be grouped under one Context. E.g., Context: Trade contains cd-1, cd-1b, cd-2, cd-3… If I read correctly, rules with the same context would not be grouped together anymore. please confirm (this impacts the XSL to transform the rules)

Context: Trade (complex type)
cd-1 (Mandatory)
Preconditions: SingleName
tradeHeader/tradeDate must be before creditDefaultSwap/generalTerms/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate.
Test cases: [Valid] [Invalid]
cd-1b (Mandatory)
Preconditions: CreditIndex
If creditDefaultSwap/generalTerms/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate is present, tradeHeader/tradeDate must be equal or after creditDefaultSwap/generalTerms/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate.
Test cases: [Valid] [Valid] [Invalid]

Question 2: how would a function be represented within a rule definition? Could you give an example for say function same-currency (example from section 4.x.3).

Thanks, Lyteck

From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark.a.addison@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:50 AM
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VAL Proposal for Validation Rule Specification

Matthew Rawlings and I have worked on the attached proposal, which has been reviewed by Marc Gratacos.
The general idea is to improve the rule by defining a set of principles and guidelines for writing rules and a standard format/notation for representing the rules.
The motivation is to ensure the rule are precise and that the terminology used to express the rules is mutually consistent.

Please can you review the document and provide any feedback. It is hoped this will improve the quality of validation rules and hopefully cut down on the number of issues.

Best Regards,

Mark.

Generally, this communication is for informational purposes only and 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. In the event you are receiving the offering materials attached below related to your interest in hedge funds or private equity, this communication may be intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of such fund(s). 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/disclosures for disclosures relating to UK legal entities.
************************************************************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************************************************************[attachment "NewValidationRulesSpec_test.zip" deleted by Mark A Addison/JPMCHASE]