[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FpML-BP FW: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from ["Matthew Rawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx, <coord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FpML-BP FW: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from ["Matthew Rawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
From: "Andrew Jacobs" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:32:22 -0400
In-reply-to: <B7C16C1424A7CE40981DA74035F88A8001D1E385@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <B7C16C1424A7CE40981DA74035F88A8001D1E385@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Sender: bpwg@xxxxxxxx

When I looked at the message processes last year I foundthat some of the '<Object><Process>-ed' names had alreadybeen used in the existing negotiation parts of thebusiness processes.

I think we may need to adopt a new naming convention forthese notification messages to ensure that they do notcollide with current definitions and to make it clearerthat the modifications and retractions refer to theprevious notification and not the underlying businessobject (e.g. trade, contract, etc.). I also prefer theword 'retracted' rather than 'cancelled' (or is it'canceled' ;-) )as 'cancel' already has a marketinterpretation.


I suggest that a pattern like:

<Object><Process>Notification (e.g.TradeExecutionNotification)<Object><Process>NotificationModified (e.g.TradeExecutionNotificationModified)<Object><Process>NotificationRetracted (e.g.TradeExecutionNotificationRetracted)

Wordy but gets the point across without affecting anyexisting messages.

This pattern isn't needed in the negotiation messages asthe initiator has the ability to terminate the processbefore any firm commitment is made. (Currently this is thesource of some of the 'unobservable completions' which arescheduled to be fixed by added explicit negotiationcancellation messages).


Andrew

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:56:34 -0400 "Marc Gratacos"<MGratacos@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

See below feedback from Matthew:

-----Original Message-----
From: coord@xxxxxxxx [mailto:coord@xxxxxxxx]Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:10 PM
To: coord-approval@xxxxxxxx
Subject: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submissionfrom ["MatthewRawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Feedback:



This needs doing, and thanks for making a proposal.
"TradeModified" - the problem with the name of themessage is that you
are
not modifying the trade; you are modifying the report ofthe trade. Why
not
call it "TradeExecutedModified"? The problem I have seenis people usingmodifications of the report to modify the trade(economic amendments),
in
error.
"TradeCancelled" - this has the same problem that itdoes not cancel atrade, but cancels the notification of the trade. Whynot call it"TradeExecutedCancelled"? The problem I have seen ispeople using
cancels of
notification to represent cancels (unwinds,counter-bookings), in error.
How does the TradeExecuted message differ fromTradeAffirmed orConfirmQuoteAccepted? All three provide notification ofan execution.
Why
not just have one message to notify of execution?
Why do these have two parties rather than two tradesides? Presumably
this
is because this will need to wait until FpML 5.0?
To what extent is this process consistent with theContract messages?
Most
usage of Trade A2A I have seen has been really messagingof Contracts
(resultant from allocations).



Matthew Rawlings

+44 791 539 7824
_____From: awg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:awg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfBrian Lynn
Sent: 09 July 2007 19:04
To: coord@xxxxxxxx; bpwg@xxxxxxxx; awg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
At today's coordination committee meeting I promised towrite up the
proposal to add trade execution messages in more detail.
I've attached a write-up with diagrams, and apreliminary schema.
Note that this write up doesn't contain anything onenhancements to thepre-trade process; I'm working on another short documentto discuss the
options in that area.



Regards,



Brian Lynn


------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C7C26D.767C4D30
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11(filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=
name=3D"PersonName"/>

<style>

</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>
Feedback:<o:p></o:p><
/=
p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
This needs doing,and thanks for =
making a
proposal.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“TradeModified”–
=
the
problem with the name of the message is that you are notmodifying the =
trade;
you are modifying the report of the trade. Why not callit =
&#8220;TradeExecutedModified&#8221;?
The problem I have seen is people using modifications ofthe report to =
modify
the trade (economic amendments), inerror.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“TradeCancelled”=
&#8211; this has
the same problem that it does not cancel a trade, butcancels the =
notification
of the trade. Why not call it“TradeExecutedCancelled”? The
=
problem
I have seen is people using cancels of notification torepresent cancels(unwinds, counter-bookings), inerror.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
How does theTradeExecuted message
=
differ
from TradeAffirmed or ConfirmQuoteAccepted? All threeprovide =
notification of
an execution. Why not just have one message to notify of=
execution?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Why do these havetwo parties =
rather than
two trade sides? Presumably this is because this willneed to wait until
=
FpML
5.0?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
To what extent isthis process =
consistent
with the Contract messages? Most usage of Trade A2A Ihave seen has been
=
really
messaging of Contracts (resultant from =
allocations).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<div>
Matthew
Rawlings<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'color:navy'><o:p></o:p>
<span
=
lang=3DEN-US
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>+44791 539 =
7824<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<div>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenterstyle=3D'text-align:center'><font
=
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman">
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcentertabindex=3D-1>
</div>
From:</sp
a=
n>
<st1:PersonNamew:st=3D"on">awg@xxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName> =
[mailto:<st1:PersonName
w:st=3D"on">awg@xxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName>] On
Behalf Of Brian Lynn 
Sent: 09July 2007 =
19:04 
To:<st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">coord@xxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName>;
bpwg@xxxxxxxx; <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">awg@xxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName> 
Subject:FpML-AWG Trade =
Execution
messages<spanlang=3DEN-US><o:p></o:p>
</div>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>At today’s coordinationcommittee =
meeting I
promised to write up the proposal to add trade executionmessages in =
more
detail.<o:p></o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>I’ve attached a write-upwith diagrams,
=
and a
preliminary schema.<o:p></o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Note that this write updoesn’t containanything on enhancements to the pre-trade process;I’m working on
=
another
short document to discuss the options in that =
area.<o:p></o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Regards,<o:p></o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<spanlang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>BrianLynn<o:p></o:p>
</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C7C26D.767C4D30--
**************************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in either this email and, ifapplicable, the attachment, are confidential and areintended only for the recipient. The contents of eitherthe email or the attachment may not be disclosed or usedby anyone other than the addressee. If you are not theintended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, ordistribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If youhave received this communication in error, please notifyus by e-mail at isda@xxxxxxxx then delete the e-mail andall attachments and any copies thereof. Thiscommunication is part of an ISDA process and is notintended for unauthorized use or distribution.
**************************************************************************************************************************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blanksubject lineIn the body include the line: unsubscribe bpwgyouremail@addressTo view archives:http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_bpwgmail/threads.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe bpwg youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_bpwgmail/threads.html

References:
- FpML-BP FW: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from ["Matthew Rawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
 - From: Marc Gratacos

Prev by Date: FpML-BP FW: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from ["Matthew Rawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Next by Date: FpML-BP RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
Previous by thread: FpML-BP FW: BOUNCE coord@xxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from ["Matthew Rawlings" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread