[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FpML-VAL validation rules questions
These changes are all improving the
rule in terms of making them more consistent and precise.
However, on the point about using "both,"
I really do not think it adds anything and is superfluous.
Simply listing each node as a separate
condition is sufficient and expresses that both must exist (as Lyteck suggests.)
Consider cases where three, four or
more nodes must exist together - we surely would not write several to express
the related existence of these nodes?
Regards,
Mark.
"Lyteck Lynhiavu"
<LLynhiavu@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: valwg@xxxxxxxx
31/07/2008 21:07
|
Please respond to
valwg@xxxxxxxx |
|
|
To
| <valwg@xxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: FpML-VAL validation rules questions |
|
Thanks Daniel and Christian
for the feedback.
See in red below (attached zip
contains updated IRD rules)
From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Daniel.Dui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:19 AM
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-VAL validation rules questions
Lyteck
Yes, “only” is a word to look for in rules.
I think that ird-23 and ird-24 should be reworded to use “if-and-only-if”.
[Lyteck: ird-23, ird-24 changed
“should only exist if” to “exists if and only if”]
A few other points:
1. Rule
ird-9 oddly uses “can exist”. It should probably be turned around to:
Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
[if calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod
exists]
cashSettlement/cashSettlementPaymentDate
must exist
[Lyteck: yes, it makes more sense
turned around.
Note: the original rule was “calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod
can only exist if a resetDates element exists.” It looks like I made
a copy/paste error in the condition, rule should be:
Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
[if calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod
exists]
resetDates must
exist
ird-9 corrected in SVN]
2. For
consistency, I’d reword the definition of the condition “isParametric”
to:
Condition: isParametric
(context: InterestRateStream) If cashflows
does not exist, or cashflows/cashflowsMatchParameters
contains is true.
[Lyteck: ok – updated in SVN]
3. I
think also the word “both” also be used in a standard way. I.e. “both
X and Y…”.
I suggest rewording Rule-6 as:
ird-6 (Mandatory)
Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
[isParametric]
[hasInitialStub]
[if both paymentDates/firstPaymentDate
and calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate
exist]
paymentDates/firstPaymentDate
> calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate.
[Lyteck: Your suggestion is consistent
with some rules (e.g., cd-31, cd-33, ird-36) but inconsistent with other
rules (cd-5, fx-3, fx-8, fx14). I think it makes sense to use “both”
before listing the nodes.
That said, should we avoid “both”
altogether and move toward separating sentences using separate condition
tags as it is done for ird-35 (discussed in #4 below) and a few others
(e.g., eqd-19, eqd-25)?]
4. What
happened to IRD-35?
ird-35 (Mandatory)
Context: PaymentDates (complex type)
[if firstPaymentDate
exists] [if lastRegularPaymentDate
exists]
firstPaymentDate
< lastRegularPaymentDate.
Test cases: [Valid]
[Invalid]
[Invalid]
Should it not be as follows?
ird-35 (Mandatory)
Context: PaymentDates (complex type)
[if both firstPaymentDate
and lastRegularPaymentDate
exist]
firstPaymentDate
< lastRegularPaymentDate.
Regards
-daniel
From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Lyteck Lynhiavu
Sent: 25 July 2008 21:33
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VAL validation rules questions
We would like to add these topics for
discussion to the next agenda:
1. Terminology
a. “If and only if”
ird-1,7, shared-1,15
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=740
o Isn’t
this the same as “if” from an implementation perspective?
o Is
function iif() bringing clarity
b. “Should only exist if” ird-23,24
o “Should”
vs. “Must”
o Isn’t
this the same as “if and only if”?
c. Use of mathematical expressions
o “>=”
vs. “greater than or equal to”
d. “If… then… else”
ird-10,11
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=697
2. Should functions be shared across
asset classes?
- E.g.,
SameCurrency, same-currency() http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=744
3. Component ordering
ln-7,8,9
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=743
- E.g.,
[n]th and [n+1]th element
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=766
Please find attached HTML renditions of
the validation rules* in \trunk\src\validation (4.5). Feel free to share
any thoughts through this forum before the next meeting.
Thanks, Lyteck
* FYI - Below is a summary of the validation
rules that we upgraded to conform to the new specifications. They fall
into two categories: (a) validation rules tracked as issues in Mantis or
(b) waiting to be noticed and upgraded
a. Logged
as issues: The following 34 issues below (related to the implementation
of the new validation specs) have been fixed in \trunk (FpML 4.5):
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=616
cd-1 (update)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=698
eqd-3 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=672
eqd-2, eqd-4, eqd-12,
eqd-13, eqd-14 (update)
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=672
eqd-2b, eqd-4b, eqd-12b,
eqd-13b, eqd-14b (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=699
eqd-6 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=700
eqd-15 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=683
eqd-19 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=684
eqd-20 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=685
eqd-23 (updated), eqd-30
(new), (pending: eqd-31, 32)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=686
eqd-25 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=701
eqd-28 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=702
eqd-29 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=759
shared-4 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=559
shared-5 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=758
shared-6 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=757
shared-7 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=756
shared-9 (updated)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=716
shared-18 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=717
shared-19 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=719
shared-20 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=720
shared-21 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=721
shared-22 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=722
shared-23 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=723
shared-24 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=724
shared-25 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=613
ird-5 (update)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=614
ird-6 (update)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=695
ird-25 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=696
ird-29 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=715
ird-48 (new)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=689
ird-57 (new) (reopened
by Harry/ TBILL question)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=690
ird-58 (new) (reopened
by Harry/ TBILL question)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=734
ln-2 (update)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=745
ln-7, ln-8, ln-9 (update)
-
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=585
all (precondition -> condition)
b. Not
logged as issues: A second wave of changes was applied as a result
of reviewing all the other rules (not logged as issues but requiring refactoring
to conform to the new specs. The following 70 rules contained "if"
statements now refactored using local <condition>s:
-
CD: cd-1b, cd-2, cd-5,
cd-8, cd-9, cd-10, cd-12, cd-13, cd-14, cd-15, cd-16, cd-17, cd-18, cd-25,
cd-26, cd-27, cd-28, cd-29, cd-30, cd-31, cd-32, cd-33, cd-34, cd-39, cd-41,
cd-42, cd-43
-
IRD: ird-9, ird-10, ird-11,
ird-35, ird-36, ird-46, ird-47
-
LOAN: ln-4, ln-5, ln-10,
ln-11, ln-12, ln-14, ln-15, ln-16, ln-17, ln-18, ln-19, ln-22, ln-24, ln-26,
ln-27, ln-28, ln-30, ln-31
-
FX: fx-2, fx-3, fx-8,
fx-9, fx-12, fx-13, fx-14, fx-15, fx-16, fx-20, fx-21, fx-22, fx-26, fx-29,
fx-30, fx-44, fx-45
-
REPO: repo-1
**************************************************************************************************************************
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 e-mail may contain information
that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or
redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and
notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unless specifically
indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation
to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product
or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official
statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions presented are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Barclays. This
e-mail is subject to terms available at the following link: www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer.
By messaging with Barclays you
consent to the foregoing. Barclays Capital is the investment banking
division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company registered in England (number
1026167) with its registered office at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP.
This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays
Group.
_______________________________________________[attachment
"valrules_45_20080731.zip" deleted by Mark A Addison/JPMCHASE]
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.