MTF minutes, June 6, 2008

["Brian Lynn" <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Attendees
========
Andrew J, Handcoded
Robert S., Brookpath
Marc G, ISDA
Lyteck L, ISDA
Brian L, GEM
Christian N, Message Automation

Regrets
======
Matthew R, JPM

Actions
=======
Christian circulated a document on identification.
Andrew circulated an diagram showing the key entities involved in FpML
trades  (parties, accounts, etc.)

Issues
======
We discussed several issues.

http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=11
(Add adjusted dates).  This is in progress with Marc, no MTF action required
at this time.

http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=97
(Par value in bond should have a currency).   MTF agreed that the par value
of the bond should always be in the same currency as the bond, which is
already provided, but is optional.  We should propose a business rule that
if the parValue is provided, the currency should also be provided, and
reassign the issue.  Marc will do this.

http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=159
Overlapping types around settlement source.  MTF feels that this is a
relatively low priority issue, mostly relevant for the IRD working group.
We agreed to table this for now.

http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=206
Trade vs. Contract.  MTF agreed that we to support our recommendation that
the term "Contract" be eliminated, we should prepare a proposal, to be send
up to the Standards Committee for approval. Brian will develop this
proposal.

http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=226
Not discussed this week; will be discussed next week.

Identification
==============
We discussed Christian's paper on identification for a few minutes.  A few
minor clarifications were suggested.  Christian will also look at whether
the proposed approach address the requirements previously defined, and
covers the scenarios identified in Brian's original document on
identification issues.  The group's expectation what that with appropriate
clarifications it probably would.  We felt that more work would be required
for event identification, and agreed that this would be done as a subsequent
step.

Entity modeling
===============
We reviewed Andrew's diagram.  Robert asked about the objective.  Brian
stated that the objective was to try to create a representation that
captured the key relationships prior to casting it into XML, as we had been
working on several XML representations without a clear agreement on these
relationships.  Robert asked about the business case for this kind of
information; the group decided that it varied, but that FpML needed to be
able to support some cases, such as IMs notifying custodians how to settle
trades.

Some questions that were raised on Andrew's diagram included:
- clarify the relation between parties and trades (via processes/roles) to
more clearly show the which side of the trade the parties represent.
- showing how to relate particular accounts to each other, e.g. pay for
these trades out of this account to that account.
- give specific examples of processes to be covered.

Next meeting
============
Jun 13 - Resume discussing issues, continue discussing E-R diagram,
identification proposal, and messaging classification