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

RE: FpML-VAL Splitting PeriodEnum



Just a comment on the use of “union” in this way…..

 

Obviously it provides a concise and elegant way of expressing the allowed element content without repeating the enumerated values of the PeriodEnum.

 

However, in terms of processing the information, a union generally implies a kind of “choice” semantics, whereas  the way it is used here the semantics are more like a kind of extension, or at least the inverse of a restriction.

 

For example, in Xpath 2 data model, when the element or attribute node is defined via a union type, the typed value determination is determined by the type definition that actually validated the content of the node.  So in this situation the typed value type will either be PeriodEnum or the anonymous type which appears in the union, depending on whether or not the value was “T”.  It will never be PeriodExtendedEnum. 

 

If you modelled it the other way round with PeriodEnum as a restriction of PeriodExtendedEnum t you would have to repeat the actual enumerated values in the two definitions.  However, the enumerations on PeriodEnum would have to be a subset of the enumerations on PeriodExtendedEnum or the schema would be invalid, so there would be protection against mistakes being made as the schema evolves.

 

A restriction approach more accurately reflects the semantics although it has a slight overhead for whoever has to maintain the lists of enumerations in the schema.  Obviously it wouldn’t work for the situation where you wanted multiple different “extensions” of the same list.

 

I don’t know how significant or otherwise the implied semantics of union may be to the various applications which consume or produce FpML, but this aspect is something to bear in mind. 

 

Regards,

 

Pete

 

From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: 24 July 2009 09:18
To: coord@xxxxxxxx
Cc: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VAL Splitting PeriodEnum

 

We attempted to split the existing PeriodEnum into two: PeriodEnum and PeriodExtendedEnum. The Extended list is a union of the PeriodEnum and it adds the 'T' (term) value. See attached.

 

Let me know if you have any comments.

 

Thanks and Regards,

Marc

 

 

 

 


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 <mailto: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.


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.