FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Architecture
Admin
andrew
Summary
The FpML Architecture should define the criteria for an element to be a header or footer element.
What is it that makes something a header or footer element? What is it that makes something a tradeHeader element?
I suggest that there is no semantic significance to something being in a header or a body section, and that this is a hangover from when we designed layout on files. That today it is of no significance, and there should be no concept of headers or footers.
If we disagree and decide there should be headers and footers, then they should be defined in terms of criteria for membership.
Why do we not bave Body sections between Headers and Footers?
Why have sub-headers such as tradeHeader?
Whatever we decided, our position should be clearly stated and free of internal contradictions.
Notes:
mgratacos
02/07/08 2:35 pm
A header contains identifying information.
The AWG requires the reason why this needs to be explicit.
mgratacos
02/21/08 2:46 pm
“Group things together because they are used at the same time or they are related”.
In general, the tradeHeader contains identification information for the deal to hold.
The messageHeder contains identification information for the message.
Headers contain identification information.
matthewdr
02/21/08 2:47 pm
Discussed at AWG 21/2/2008. Agreement was Andrew Jacobs would provide a definition.
matthewdr
08/20/08 9:44 am
Is there any progress since February on providing the definition?
andrew
10/02/08 10:17 am
The choice of element name is left to the group designing the model extension and should be selected on the basis that it both clearly indicates the type of information contained within and is a commonly accepted term.
The use of the suffix ‘Header’ is suggestive of positioning within the document but also that contained data describes the business object (e.g. trade, message, contract, etc.) as a whole. All ‘Header’ elements in FpML currently have both of these characteristics.
The element names ‘tradeHeader’, ‘messageHeader’ and more recently, ‘contractHeader’ were seen as appropriate to the group responsible for those sections of the model they reside in. If an FpML working group at some point needs to introduce the notion of a ‘Footer’ or ‘Body’ it should be free to do so providing the that the resulting schema grammar is acceptable to the group and the wider user community as well as meeting technical constrains of the architecture specification.
The AWG has discussed the matter at length and feels that this is a model design choice and does not need further definition in the specification.
andrew
10/02/08 1:49 pm
AWG agreed on 02-10-2008 to close this issue.