FpML Issues Tracker

514: Additional rules for Contracts Messaging

September 27, 2007

closed

Minor

Always

Validation Rules

Admin

None

Summary

Attached here are 11 additional rules proposed for Contracts Messaging.

Notes:

  • matthew

    10/09/07 7:11 pm

    Andrew Jacobs pointed out that the problem with fn:deep-equal() is that it compares all elements and attributes, and not just the FpML elements and attributes. This would therefore apply to xml:lang and other non-FpML types. To overcome this the proposal has been extended to define fpml:deep-equal(). This provides the correct behaviour.

  • mgratacos

    10/23/07 2:04 pm

    VWG 2007-10-23: Agreement from participants (Matthew, Christian, Marc)

  • mgratacos

    11/06/07 2:44 pm

    Simon will write a section for the spec on how validation rules should be expressed.

    These rules should be added in a separate section (msg).

  • matthew

    02/13/08 4:56 pm

    I am concerned that nothing has happened since the 6th November 2007 meeting. This needs to make it into the release.

    Please assure me this will make it into the release.

  • mgratacos

    02/25/08 6:16 pm

    I suggest splitting the rules between two different pages: messaging (rules 1-4) and contract notification rules (5-end).

  • iyermakova

    05/20/08 2:02 pm

    ValWG 2008-05-20: agreement to wait on MTF comments.

  • matthewdr

    09/23/08 1:10 pm

    No further MTF comments. Passed back to VWG for execution.

    Matthew to provide the examples.

  • matthewdr

    09/23/08 1:13 pm

    AJ asked for “I suggest splitting the rules between two different pages: messaging (rules 1-4) and contract notification rules (5-end).” This is being done in the example.

  • matthewdr

    12/15/08 11:51 am

    Can ISDA provide the examples?

  • matthewdr

    12/15/08 1:26 pm

    I added examples for msg-1 and msg-2 to the Subversion repository: https://dedicated.fpml.org/svn/fpml/branches/validation-rules/src/validation/examples/

    I didn’t split the exmaples into valid and invalid because the messages for the valid and invalid scenarios are the same. What makes something invalid or valid is which collection of XML documents are used. So all the test messages go in the same directory, and it is the collections that are valid and invalid.

    The Collection XML document format is the Saxon one. This has been widely copied and implemented by other tools such as XML Spy.

  • matthewdr

    12/15/08 1:33 pm

    Suggest completing the rules, and tackling the examples in separate issues.

  • matthewdr

    12/15/08 4:30 pm

    Reviewed examples on the ‘phone with Lyteck and Marc, and Mark. Will be published in the next working draft to solicit feedback.

  • lyteck

    03/02/09 9:42 pm

    implemented.
    – converted rules-messaging-version2.html to standard xml format
    – added functions ContractIdentifier-equal() & fpml:deep-equal()
    – added link to messaging rules from main Validation Architecture page

  • matthewdr

    04/07/09 9:36 am

    Reopening: There were some minor errors in the Severity setting and the grammar in the comments. These are fixed in the attached file.

  • matthewdr

    04/07/09 9:37 am

    Put rules-english.xml file in the trunk to resolve the issue. This file has all the grammar and severity errors fixed.

  • matthewdr

    04/07/09 1:07 pm

    Discussed at the VWG today. Lyteck agreed to implement.

  • lyteck

    04/07/09 2:41 pm

    implemented: replaced msg rules in trunk with Matthews’ attached file (rules-english-msg.xml)

  • matthew

    04/27/09 6:56 pm

    tested

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.