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

RE: FpML-VAL xpath 2.0 issue



I don’t really understand the specific case mentioned in the issue.  Both of the mentioned values are dates, without times.  In this case the time zone should be irrelevant, no?

 

It seems to me that the issue would only be important for xsd:dateTime elements, e.g. rules relating to message create/expiry times, or to averaging date/times for equity derivatives.

 

Brian Lynn, CTO

Global Electronic Markets, http://global-emarkets.com

High-speed FpML matching, reconciliation, and validation:

http://fpml-mediator.com

 


From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Heinrich
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:12 AM
To: Peter.Geraghty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FpML-VAL xpath 2.0 issue

 

Peter,

Current date / time comparisons in FpML are somewhat ill-defined in this area. Indeed there is an outstanding issue (
http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=126) concerning the precise problem  you mention below.

In the next VWG conference call, at the request of Marc Gratacos, I will be adding an agenda item to discuss the possible adoption of the W3C standard for XPath 2.0 date / time comparisons. The XPath 2.0 standard formalizes rules for comparing date / times with and without time zones.

Regards,


Simon

Peter Geraghty wrote:

When there is a rule based on ordering of two dates it seems sensible to require that either both have timezones or neither has.

 

This is easy to understand for those responsible for creating the messages, and specifies robust and predictable behaviour, irrespective of processing context, or considerations of determinate/indeterminate instance data combinations.

 

Is there any reason not to require this?

 

Pete

 

 

 


From: valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: 19 May 2006 21:33
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VAL xpath 2.0 issue

 

Simon,

 

There is an open issue reported by Matthew some time ago regarding the comparison of dates in the validation rules. See http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=126

 

We discussed with Christian at that time and the agreement was that we should probably use XPath 2.0 evaluation in some of these rules.

 

Maybe we can discuss it on the next meeting and if there is agreement, we should probably update the documentation accordingly.

 

Best 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 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 plc 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.

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