The design of the Knock type and its usage with an optional element of the OptionFeatures type means that it is possible to define an equityOption or equityOptionTransactionSupplement that contains a knock feature but omits any definition of the knock in/out levels. e.g. … … … … I suggest that the model for Knock type … Continued
The rule fx-46 uses an undefined term of “either” in conjunction with “or”. The rule should use “or” as defined in the operators section. The rule today is: ” fx-46 (Mandatory) Context: SideRates (complex type) currency1SideRate/sideRateBasis = either “BaseCurrencyPerCurrency1” or “Currency1PerBaseCurrency”. ” Solution 1 – using the union operator “|”: fx-46 (Mandatory) Context: SideRates (complex … Continued
A rule is needed to prevent circular references in relative notionals. An example failure scenario of a notional reference being circular is a notional referring to itself. In general a new rule is needed. The rule would prohibit circular references within notionals. This is expressed with a function because this is the simplest way to … Continued
The rule today is: ” fx-31 (Mandatory) Context: SideRates (complex type) [same-currency-scheme((baseCurrency,currency1SideRate/currency,currency2SideRate/currency))] baseCurrency != the values of both currency1SideRate/currency and currency2SideRate/currency. ” The problem is that precedence operators (parentheses) are missing. 1st possible interpretation is: “(baseCurrency != currency1SideRate/currency) and (baseCurrency != currency2SideRate/currency)” 2nd possible interpretation is: “baseCurrency != (currency1SideRate/currency and currency2SideRate/currency)” Secondly what does “the … Continued
The “numberOfOptions” in the eqd-26 is outside of Context: EquityMultipleExercise Context: EquityMultipleExercise (complex type) eqd-26 (Mandatory) maximumNumberOfOptions
The example invalid-fx-36-02.xml is invalid against rule fx-45 as well as fx-36. Correct invalid-fx-36-02.xml so it is only invalid gainst fx-36.
The example invalid-fx-36-01.xml is invalid against rule fx-42 as well as fx-36. Correct the example so it is only invalid against fx-36.
The new FX rules that apply to Trade and Contract need a guard constraint to restrict them to FX. As a simple example, those FX rules will probably be invalid when applied to CDS, IRS, EQS, etc. The affected rules are: fx036, fx-36b, fx-37, fx-37b, fx38, fx38b, fx-39, fx-39b, fx-40, and fx-40b. The FX Product … Continued
Invalid examples are needed for fx-36b, fx-37b, fx-38b, fx-39b, fx-40b.
Some of the ird rules use the function “contains()” rather than “exists()”. In each case the usage shows that what is meant is exists() and not contains(). As per the FpML Validation Architecture, where a term is not defined we use the XPath2 definition. Changing the contains() to exists() would bring the ird into line … Continued