FpML Issues Tracker

Summary

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 and the default scheme attribute masterAgreementSchemeDefault.

Suggest changing masterAgreementTypeScheme attribute to masterAgreementScheme.

Inconsistent naming in the (rediculous) attribute:

nationalisationOrInsolvencySchemeDefault

and

nationalisationOrInsolvencyOrDelistingScheme

If such names are going to be used, could we at least make them consistent?

Missing default scheme attribute for optionTypeScheme. Suggest adding optionTypeSchemeDefault attribute to FpML/root element.

Missing partyContactFunctionSchemeDefault attribute on FpML root element, for defaulting the URI for partyContactFunctionScheme.

Coding scheme default potentialAdjustmentEventSchemeDefault is declared, but is never used (does not appear to have any scheme for which it would provide a default).

productIdScheme attribute is used on productId element in FpML_Product, but it has no default scheme attribute, not does it appear in the documnetation.

Suggest adding productIdSchemeDefault attribute to FpML/ root element.

Inconsistency between coding scheme and coding scheme default for routingIdTypeSchemeDefault.

Default is: routingIdTypeSchemeDefault Scheme is: routingIdScheme

(PDF docs had routingIdCodeScheme, but I have lost the energy to download the latest PDF to check if somebody fixed this).

Suggest changing name of scheme default to routingIdSchemeDefault

Coding scheme default securityIdSchemeDefault does not appear to be the default for anything, i.e. it's not used.

Suggest removing it.

Another tiny, since this is intended to be an international standard...

The FX working group is using FX on their type names, while the IRD group has used Fx.

I raised this a few months back when I reported a batch of about fifty errors in an earlier draft of FpML 3, but have not seen any change and have not got a reply.

In doing the upgrade of our OTC Warehouse product to the latest version of FpML 3, I came across about a dozen errors in the DTD, mostly concerned with typo's in coding schemes and the defaults. Our product does coding scheme validation and hence these are important.

Best Regards,

James Battle