FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
N/A
Validation Rules
danieldui
andrew
Summary
We need to cross check the points in the schema that use the payer/receiver and buyer/seller model group.
Some rules may need to be revised and some rules may be missing.
closed
Minor
N/A
Validation Rules
danieldui
andrew
We need to cross check the points in the schema that use the payer/receiver and buyer/seller model group.
Some rules may need to be revised and some rules may be missing.
Notes:
lyteck
08/23/11 1:06 pm
As a first step, identified where in all the rules, where the buyer/seller PartyReference and payer/receiver PartyReference pairs are used. see summary below:
CD rules
– Cd-6 [GeneralTerms] buyer/seller
– Cd-13 [CreditDefaultSwap] buyer
– Cd-14 [CreditDefaultSwap] seller
Eqd rules
– Eqd-22 [EquityDerivativeBase] buyer/seller
FX rules
– Fx-18 [FxSingleLeg] payer/receiver
– Fx-22 [FxOption] buyer/seller payer/receiver
– Fx-32 [TermDeposit] payer/receiver
– Fx-45 [FxDigitalOption] buyer/seller
Repo rules
– Repo-2 [Repo] buyer/seller
IRD rules
– Ird-8 [InterestRateStream] payer/receiver
Shared rules
– Shared-5 [multiple contexts] payer/receiver
– Shared-12 [every descendent] buyer
– Shared-13 [every descendent] seller
The next step is to cross check what’s in the schema (to do)
Lyteck
danieldui
08/23/11 1:27 pm
Update:
WIP – Lyteck started working on this. He found 10-12 rules affected and needs to check the schema. ETA 2 weeks.
danieldui
09/20/11 1:55 pm
Lyteck compiled a list of where the buyer/seller model is used in the schema.
ACTION: Attach spreadsheet.
Next Step: check how rules are affected.
lyteck
10/04/11 10:32 am
attached spreadsheet contains analysis of where in the 5.x Schema the party references are used:
– PayerReceiver.model referenced 23 times in 11 xsds
– BuyerSeller.model referenced 12 times in 8 xsds
next step: are those 35 matches covered in the existing 13 validation rules? (see last column) if not develop new rules.
danieldui
10/05/11 12:13 pm
Discussed on 4 Oct.
Lyteck gave an update. The analysis is ongoing.
lyteck
10/25/11 12:59 pm
Updated spreadsheet contains preliminary actions for further discussion.
danieldui
10/25/11 2:46 pm
Discussed spreadsheet, which is now complete.
Referring to spreadsheet version 2…
– Column “Q” of the spreadsheet is covered by ref-29.
– We need a new rule (shared-29) to cover the “pink cases” in Column “R”. This rule should be very similar to shared-5
ACTION: Lyteck/ISDA
Remove Shared-12 and Shared-13 because the constraints that they express are already covered by ref-29 and because element tradeSide does not exist any more.
ACTION: Lyteck/ISDA
Implement new shared-29 rule and test cases.
ACTION: Lyteck/ISDA
Remove CD-6 and Eqd-22 because shared-29 will makes them redundant.
danieldui
11/08/11 2:25 pm
Update from Call on 8 Nov
Lyteck: WIP
Note: Implement rules similar to shared-5 using multiple context.
lyteck
11/21/11 10:32 pm
I’ve completed but haven’t had a chance to check in the work from my desktop.
lyteck
12/13/11 4:02 am
– added shared-29 (buyer party reference not equal seller)
– deprecated cd-6 (replaced by shared-29)
– deprecated eqd-22 (replaced by shared-29)
– deprecated shared-12 (covered by ref-29)
– deprecated shared-13 (covered by ref-29)
– added 2 context to shared-5 (TradeUnderlyer2, PrincipalMovement)
(see spreadsheet v4 for details)
-completed. please check.
danieldui
01/24/12 2:37 pm
All implemented
danieldui
01/24/12 5:05 pm
We need 2 new follow-up issues about shared-29 and shared-19