You could require that “exists” was specified for each node in
question, so that the word “and” appeared between proper conditions e.g.,
if paymentDates/firstPaymentDate exists and calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate exists
Alternatively, “all of” would be a more appropriate term than “several”
for cases where more than 2 nodes were involved.
Pete
From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of mark.a.addison@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 01 August 2008 09:18
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: 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.
Disclaimer:
The contents of this E-mail plus any attachment is intended for the use of the
addressee only and is confidential, proprietary and may be privileged. It will not be
binding upon Trace Group or any group company (Trace). Opinions, conclusions,
contractual obligations and other information in this message in so far as they relate to
the official business of Trace must be specifically confirmed in writing by Trace. If you
are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment, use or
disclose the contents to any other person, but are requested to telephone or E-mail
the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Trace
takes all reasonable precautions to ensure that no virus or defect is transmitted via
this e mail, however Trace accepts no responsibility for any virus or defect that might
arise from opening this E-mail or attachments.