FpML Issues Tracker

1069: Change in the use of Product elements

September 29, 2011

closed

Minor

Always

Schema

Admin

mgratacos

Summary

Reviewing the 5.2 schema I noticed that the abstract Product element has been modified and the documentation associated with the elements has been changed. I don't believe the changes where necessary to match the requirements of the proposed regulation.

1. It is not necessarly to add an explicit element to contain the asset class it could easily have been accommodated as a referencing an specific asset class scheme.

As the world's regulators are unlikely to agree on a universal scheme there will always need to be an explicit schema associated with each code and its is not more difficult to generate and process ...

InterestRate

.. as it is ..

InterestRate

2. A UPI will only contain a subset of the data fields that define a derivative product therefore two similar but different products may end up with the same UPI code. The original usage of the element was that it allowed specific products to be identified. Using this element for a non-specific UPI seems counter intuitive to me. The UPI is more a product type code and should be also be stored in a element with a suitable qualifying scheme URL.

It is entire possible that some other regulators will combine the concepts of asset class and product type into a single structured code value (as in the CFI).

I would this to see the 5.2 and 5.3 product models reverted to thier old design and the usage of their elements better documented.

Notes:

  • mgratacos

    10/03/18 5:58 am

    This was implemented in 5.3 onwards. It won’t change in 5.x versions.

    • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.

    Report an Issue

    The FpML Issues Tracker is designed to facilitate public interaction in the standard.

    By registering you will be able to submit corrections and comments, generate reports, and view the complete issues archive for FpML.

    Report Issue