Following publication of the ISDA 2006 Definitions in Jan 2007 an additional code is needed in the contractualDefinitionsScheme. Proposed addition: ISDA2006 FpML ISDA 2006 Definitions Guy Gurden Head of Product Development SwapsWire
In Business Process Architecture, section 3.1.6, a text segment is repeated (see *repeated text* below) 3.1.6 Identification of Purpose The receiver of a message … The FpML message framework is based on type substitution (option 3 – By Element Type) as it gives the greatest control over validation whilst allowing easy extension of the message … Continued
The CD Physical Settlement Matrix v4 introduced a new provision — “Additional Provisions for Reference Entities with Delivery Restrictions (February 1, 2007)”. The contractualSupplementScheme should have a value (such as ISDA2003DeliveryRestrictions2007 with description) to support this provision.
All versions shown in “Product Version” drop down above should be tagged
Please adopt a simple, consistent tagging convention, that states version, status, and revision within a status The most recent tag appears to be FpML43WD1-wd-fpml-4-3-2007-02-05 this should just simply be tagged FpML-4-3-WD-1 following the suggested convention FpML-major-minor-status-revision
The publication of the 2006 ISDA Definitions introduced some additional Day Count Fraction codes (see Section 4.16 Day Count Fraction of the 2006 ISDA Definitions and also the commentary on the 2000 vs 2006 changes on page viii). Specifically: 1. A new Day Count Fraction of “30E/360 (ISDA)” has been added. Suggested FpML coding scheme … Continued
In the asset-4-3 schema, the underlyer “mortgage” has a typo in the MortgageSector type. It currently states: this should probably be:
An extension point should be provided similar to PartyTradeInformation
This means that dates cannot be referenced
FpML needs a consistent set of Core Data Types. There is a gap today where this part of the standard is left unspecified and it is causing us problems with implementing FpML. There is incompatability between market participants on data types, no agreement on field sizes, and efficiency problems in the implementation. Here is a … Continued