FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Validation Rules
Admin
None
Summary
We agreed to use XPath for paths and we use it everywhere except for contexts. The context paths should be changed to be XPath.
## Example with shared-5 ##
Today we have: Context: payerPartyReference
This would become: Context: //payerPartyReference
## Example with eqd-1 ##
Today we have: Context: EquityAmericanExercise (complex type)
This would become: Context: //element(*, EquityAmericanExercise)
Notes:
sheinrich
11/12/07 10:39 am
I will write a section for the spec on how validation rules should be expressed.
We will review this issue once that spec if agreed upon.
matthewdr
02/19/08 10:07 am
Simon has resigned as VWG Chair, so we can no longer wait for his spec, because presumably he will no longer be producing it.
We already added a section on “Profiling Rules”, so presumably this substitutes for Simon’s spec. Lets just add this one improvement.
ANON
03/10/08 12:06 pm
At the Val WG meeting on Feb 26th 2008, the change proposed in this issue was not accepted.
matthewdr
03/10/08 12:36 pm
The VWG is free to reject the proposal to fix this, but what does it propose as an alternative? There must be an alternative as today there is an inconsistency between the statement we use XPath for paths and the fact that we don’t.
We are still lacking a section for the spec on how constraints should be expressed.
matthewdr
12/10/08 10:28 am
We had Marc and Lyteck’s paper on describing a precise version in XPath. So the next step would be for the contexts to be expressed precisely.
for example:
”
Context: element(*, Trade)
”
matthewdr
12/15/08 10:55 am
With the adoption of the paper on writing out rules, this issue is closed.