I think this discussion is much like the
one about deciding if a rule should say that an “exist” or that an
element “is present”.
I think that, if possible, the rules
should be consistent and avoid using two words to mean the same thing. I prefer
“equal”. I had a look through the FX rules, but also the IRD rules
and others and I think that they can be reworded more easily to use
“equal” rather than to use “same”.
I also propose to pick one of
“must”, “should”, and “shall” and use it
consistently.
-daniel
From:
valwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:valwg@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Brous
Sent: 15 April 2008 13:23
To: valwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FpML-VAL FX Business
Rules
If "equal" does equal the same thing as "same",
Would "unequal"
not equal the same as "insane"?
On Apr 15, 2008, at 7:49 AM, "Andrew Jacobs" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Out of curiousity I looked up 'same' and
'equal' in the Compact Oxford English dictionary.
equal
•
adjective 1 being the same in quantity, size, degree,
value, or status. 2 evenly or
fairly balanced: an equal contest.
3 (equal to) having the ability or resources to meet (a
challenge).
•
noun a person or thing that is
equal to another.
•
verb (equalled, equalling;
US equaled,
equaling) 1 be equal or equivalent to. 2 match or rival.
— ORIGIN Latin aequalis, from aequus ‘even, level, equal’
same
•
adjective 1 (the
same) exactly alike; not different or changed. 2 (this/that
same) referring to a person or thing just mentioned.
•
pronoun 1 (the same) the
same thing as previously mentioned. 2
(the same) identical people or
things. 3 the person or thing just
mentioned.
•
adverb in the same way.
— PHRASES all (or just)
the same 1
nevertheless. 2 anyway. at the same time nevertheless.
— DERIVATIVES sameness noun.
— ORIGIN Old Norse.
Seems 'equality' is actually defined in terms of 'sameness'.
I think I'll stick to the current wording.
Andrew
Dear VWG - Please find below my feedback on the latest
FX rules draft.
- Many of the rules compare
elements of type Currency. The problem with the current rules draft is
they do not take into account the currencyScheme attribute.
- Some of the tests on the
data are ambiguous. For example fx-5 has "must be the same as". This phrase is undefined.
Presumably it is more than just node equality because it takes into
account namespaces, extensions, excluding comments, etc.
- The rules fx-12 refers to
"the calculated schedule dates".
This schedule is undefined. It would need to be defined to be referred to.
Matthew Rawlings
+44 7917 596 827
Please find attached the latest
revision of the FX business rules and a ZIP containing test examples for FpML
3.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
As a result of implementing the rules I have
discovered mistakes in one FX examples. I have included copies of the corrected
examples within the zip.
Thanks
Andrew Jacobs
Director & CTO
HandCoded Software Ltd
Mob: +44 (0)7710 304239
[attachment "FX Business Validation
Rules.doc" deleted by Matthew D Rawlings/JPMCHASE] [attachment "FX
Test Cases.zip" deleted by Matthew D Rawlings/JPMCHASE]
This
communication is for informational purposes only. 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. 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
|