The PDF documentation for the rateTreatmentScheme coding scheme values is incorrect. The PDF documentation incorrectly uses the definition from the negativeInterestRateScheme. The correct documentation for these codes is in the MS Word documentation for FpML 2.
The callPutSchemeDefault element on the FpML root element is declared but never used. Inconsistent naming of scheme: exchangeIdScheme/exchangeIdTypeSchemeDefault Suggest drop the “Type” text out of the attribute name exchangeIdTypeSchemeDefault Missing scheme default attribute on the FpML/root element for: instrumentIdScheme used on the instrumentId element. Suggest adding instrumentIdSchemeDefault attribute on FpML/root element. Inconsistent naming of masterAgreementTypeScheme … Continued
I wonder if it would be possible to introduce some consistency between the URI naming convention for new and old parts of FpML, e.g. – the URI for payerReceiverScheme is http://www.fpml.org/spec/2001/payer-receiver-1-0 while: – the URI for touchConditionScheme is http://www.fpml.org/spec/2002/touch-condition-scheme-1-0 i.e. newer URI’s append the word “scheme”. This will assist vendors who actually use these URI’s … Continued
FpML.org has published FpML 2.0 Last Call Working Draft. This version incorporates feedback on the FpML 2.0 Working Draft 17th October 2001. Comments should be submitted by Monday, January 7th 2002 via fpml-issues@yahoogroups.com It is anticipated that a Trial Recommendation incorporating any feedback will be published in January 2002. A copy of the standard can … Continued
In section 7 of the April 17 WD of FpML 3.0, there was a proposed change to the use of scheme defaults: Here is the text of the proposal: Quote: “The FpML Working Groups are considering removing the scheme default attributes from the FpML root element and changing the scheme attributes from being #IMPLIED to … Continued
At the last Standards Committee meeting there was alot of feedback of implementations of FpML 2.0. As a result it being proposed to move FpML 2.0 to Recommendation. Are there any objections from anyone in this group to such a move ? If so please state the reasons why we should not move to Recommendation. … Continued
Some additional points for FpML 2.0 Rec. 1) In the FpML 3 Draft, within the rollConventionScheme the name of the entry IMMCAD has changed to CADIMM. If this is a deliberate change, then it might make the migration from FpML 2 –> FpML 3 easier if this name change is also made in the FpML … Continued
FpML, I have quicky glanced at the spec for FpML 2.0. I have skipped the sections on the actual definition (which I am sure mean lots more to others), but looking at the schemes and data type sections. Here are some observations that might be useful: * Section 9.1.1 – there seems to be an … Continued
FpML.org has published an updated FpML Version 2.0 Working Draft. This version incorporates feedback on the FpML 2.0 Working Draft 28th August 2001. It is anticipated that a Last Call Working Draft incorporating any feedback will be published in November 2001. A copy of the standard can be obtained from: http://www.fpml.org/spec. Steven Lord FpML IRD … Continued
I have noticed the following (minor) errors in the example trades in the LCWD: – In example 17, the calculationAgentParty is given as NonExerciseingParty instead of NonExercisingParty. – quotationRateTypeScheme is specified to be http://www.fpml.org/spec/2000/period-1-0 i.e. the same as for periodScheme. – In example 25, an illegal value of PaymentDate appears in dateRelativeTo (the coding scheme … Continued