The rule ref-18 requires an optional element to be present. If the element is not present the rule will fail. The rule today is: ” ref-18 (Mandatory) Context: PricingStructurePoint (complex type) The coordinate/generic/@href attribute = the underlyingAsset/@id attribute ” The element “coordinate” is optional within PricingStructurePoint. One potential solution is to add a guard on … Continued
The value “BreakageFee” currently looks like an XPath, not a value in ln-27. Rule today: ” ln-27 (Mandatory) Context: OneOffFeeNotice (complex type) [feePayment/feeType = BreakageFee] loanContractSummary must exist. ” There are two things I need to know: 1. “BreakageFee” is a value. 2. The type of “BreakageFee”. If we wrote it out like the other … Continued
The FpML Validation Architecture specifies how to define a function, but not how to use a defined function. Please add this definition.
The Reference Rules are wordier than the Rules Specification directs us. The form of the the rules could be shrunk. The rule today: ” ref-1 (Mandatory) Context: AssetReference (complex type) The @href attribute = the @id attribute of an element of type Asset. ” First proposed form: ” ref-1 (Mandatory) Context: AssetReference (complex type) @href … Continued
Please add a single invalid example for each of the Ref rules.
The rules repo-1 and repo-2 refer to complex types that don’t exist: ” repo-1 (Mandatory) Context: Repo (complex type) [repo/duration = Open] repo/forwardLeg must not exist. ” ” repo-2 (Mandatory) Context: Repo (complex type) [RepoForwardLeg] spotLeg/buyerPartyReference/@href = forwardLeg/sellerPartyReference/@href, and spotLeg/sellerPartyReference/@href = forwardLeg/buyerPartyReference/@href. ” The complex type Repo is not in the schema.
Both samples, invalid-fx-46-01.xml and invalid-fx-47-01.xml are invalid against their own rules, but also invalid against each other’s rules. As per the FpML rule specification guidelines each invalid sample must only be invalid against one rule. Please fiz the samples to be invalid against their own rules only.
The rule fx-46 has an XPath statement that should be a value. In the HTML file some parts of the rule are given in bold and this appears to be a way to indicate that this is a value and not an XPath. If the rule is interpreted strictly as per FpML rule specification guidelines … Continued
The validation rule sample invalid-fx-45-01.xml does not exercise rule fx-45. The rule today is: ” fx-45 (Mandatory) Context: FxAverageRateOption (complex type) [exists(fxOptionPremium)] buyerPartyReference/@href = fxOptionPremium/payerPartyReference/@href and sellerPartyReference/@href = fxOptionPremium/receiverPartyReference/@href. Test cases: [Invalid] ” The problem is that the sample is a Digital Option, not a FXAverageRateOption: CITI10019 UBSW20019 2001-11-12 Double no touch
The following FX Rules require extending to support Contracts in addition to Trades. fx-36 fx-37 fx-38 fx-39 fx-40