FpML Issues Tracker

279: Deprecate productType

January 30, 2007

closed

Major

Always

Schema

Admin

mgratacos

Summary

Please deprecated productType.

The information is redundant because it duplicates the productId and the parametric contents of the contract.

Notes:

  • mgratacos

    02/06/07 11:36 am

    The Coordination Committee decided not to deprecate ProductType. The main reason is that this field is proved to be useful for internal purposes since the list of values is manageable. It is also useful when a service provider or a group of firms decide a controlled list of values and do product checking against these values.

    The group agrees though that the element presents problems in B2B scenarios. Some firms have misused this element by adding many product features’ information into one field.

    That’s why the Specification should be amended encouraging structural analysis instead of the use of productType for product identification and state that productType can be used for internal implementations and service providers where the code list is well-controlled.

    In addition the Business Process Working Group should update the list of values of the simple product type scheme.

  • mgratacos

    03/09/07 5:27 pm

    The following text has been added to the main section of the Specification:

    Product Identification

    In order to identify the type of product contained within an FpML message, the Standards Committee encourages the use of structural analysis. Structural analysis is based on checking the presence of some specific elements within the message instead of relying on the value of a specific element such as productType.

    The presence of some specific elements helps to define the product category of the transaction that is being sent. For example, the presence of the creditDefaultSwap and referenceInformation elements in a message is critical to categorize the product as single name credit default swap.

    Product categorization using only the productType element value should be avoided. It should only be used by internal messaging implementations or by service providers. In both cases the code list is well-controlled and commonly understood by all participants.

    Is this good enough?

  • mgratacos

    07/03/07 10:01 am

    “In addition the Business Process Working Group should update the list of values of the simple product type scheme.”

    This has been completed and committed to the trunk.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.