FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Major
Always
Request New Feature
XAPWG
mgratacos
mgratacos
Summary
In the current ISDA 2021 Interest Rate Definitions publication process, the version number is a critical part of the process. New versions of the Defs will replace the publication of the supplements to the Defs.
We propose to add a new contractualDefinitionsVersion element inside the documentation element and create a choice between the existing contractualTermsSupplement and the new contractualDefinitionsVersion.
Notes:
mgratacos
03/20/23 1:35 pm
Minutes AWG 2023-02-02
It should be implemented using scheme values instead of changing the schema. Action: TH to propose new coding scheme values including the 2021 Defs version number.
JasonPolis
04/06/23 7:54 am
Request submitted and assigned to XAPWG
Contractual Definitions: the addition of the version number as part of the coding scheme value to support the 2021 Definitions versioning. This would mean the introduction of new values such as ISDA2021V1,…,ISDA2021V8.
mgratacos
07/17/23 7:13 am
Guy provided some input via the mailing list. See https://www.fpml.org/mg_threads/3fd470ea/19a4e0f5-2/
GG: the trade date that applicable is based on the trade date of the transaction.
The applicability of which definition is automatic.
Doubts anyone would want to explicitly state which version was in use, and coordinate timings.
The sub matrices have their own versioning.
You can explicitly state which version is to be used, or odd combination of sub components, but those are unlikely scenarios.
MG: In CDM including not just FRO, but also the reference data. So for each FRO which version it was published or removed.
We have that metadata information. Validate when you send a trade with that FRO when it was published, and whether it is correct from a definitions perspective. To know exactly what version you are training on. That can also be done on trade date.
We weren’t sure about the mechanics. Introducing version might cause more confusion.