FpML Issues Tracker

716: Disjoint parties rule

May 28, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Validation Rules

Admin

None

Summary

A new rule should be added to enforce disjoint Parties.

The new rule is: " shared-18 (Mandatory) Context: AcceptQuote (complex type), AllocationAmended (complex type), AllocationCancelled (complex type), AllocationCreated (complex type), AmendmentConfirmed (complex type), CancelTradeCashflows (complex type), CancelTradeConfirmation (complex type), CancelTradeMatch (complex type), ConfirmationCancelled (complex type), ConfirmTrade (complex type), ContractCreated (complex type), ContractFullTermination (complex type), ContractFullTerminationCancelled (complex type), ContractIncreased (complex type), ContractIncreasedCancelled (complex type), ContractNovated (complex type), ContractNovatedCancelled (complex type), ContractPartialTermination (complex type), ContractPartialTerminationCancelled (complex type), ContractReferenceMessage (complex type), CreditEventNotification (complex type), DataDocument (complex type), DrawdownNotice (complex type), IncreaseConfirmed (complex type), InterestPaymentNotice (complex type), ModifyTradeConfirmation (complex type), ModifyTradeMatch (complex type), NovationMessage.model (group), OneOffFeeNotice (complex type), OnGoingFeeNotice (complex type), PositionReport (complex type), PositionsAcknowledged (complex type), PositionsAsserted (complex type), PositionsMatchResults (complex type), Quote (complex type), QuoteAcceptanceConfirmed (complex type), QuoteUpdated (complex type), RepaymentConfirmationNotice (complex type), RepaymentNotice (complex type), RequestAllocation (complex type), RequestAmendmentConfirmation (complex type), RequestIncreaseConfirmation (complex type), RequestPortfolio (complex type), RequestPositionReport (complex type), RequestQuote (complex type), RequestQuoteResponse (complex type), RequestTerminationConfirmation (complex type), RequestTradeConfirmation (complex type), RequestTradeMatch (complex type), RequestTradeStatus (complex type), RequestValuationReport (complex type), TerminationConfirmed (complex type), TradeAffirmation (complex type), TradeAffirmed (complex type), TradeAlleged (complex type), TradeAlreadyMatched (complex type), TradeAlreadySubmitted (complex type), TradeAmended (complex type), TradeAmendmentRequest (complex type), TradeAmendmentResponse (complex type), TradeCancelled (complex type), TradeCashflowsAsserted (complex type), TradeCashflowsMatchResult (complex type), TradeConfirmed (complex type), TradeCreated (complex type), TradeErrorResponse (complex type), TradeExecution (complex type), TradeExecutionCancelled (complex type), TradeExecutionModified (complex type), TradeIncreaseRequest (complex type), TradeIncreaseResponse (complex type), TradeMatched (complex type), TradeMismatched (complex type), TradeNotFound (complex type), TradeStatus (complex type), TradeTerminationRequest (complex type), TradeTerminationResponse (complex type), TradeUnmatched (complex type), ValuationReport (complex type) Rule: Each party/partyId must be unique. The equivalence test for uniqueness tests the partyId content and partyIdScheme as strings. Additionally, where it exists each party/partyName must be unique. Comment: Each party must be disjoint. "

Notes:

  • matthewdr

    06/03/08 1:45 pm

    Agreed at VWG. Marc Gratacos to implement. The equivalence test will be represented as a function at Marc Gratacos’s request.

    Agreed Marc will raise this at the MTF to improve the schema.

  • lyteck

    07/07/08 2:25 pm

    fixed as proposed (using new specs format)

  • matthewdr

    08/12/08 4:14 pm

    The test is that no partyIds are the same. The current rule tests the opposite, that they are all the same. Please correct this.

    Currently:

    Each party/partyId must be unique, parties must have the same-partyIds, and, where it exists, each party/partyName must be unique.

    Should be:

    Each party/partyId must be unique. Each party/partyName must be unique.

    I don’t think a function is necessary.

  • lyteck

    08/19/08 8:50 pm

    updated rule definition as proposed: Each party/partyId must be unique. Each party/partyName must be unique.

    added comment using format proposed in 722: Both a party’s name and party Id must be unique. The partyIdScheme is part of the partyId uniqueness check.

  • matthewdr

    08/20/08 9:26 am

    Closing after reviewing the resolution.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.