FpML Issues Tracker

Summary

There is no clear distinction in the XML Shchema between the definition of something and the identification of something.

A good example of this is Party at /FpML/party. In the schema it says "A type defining party information.". In the FpML manual it says: "...this component is restricted to party identification.". These two statements are contradictory. Either Party defines the Party and all its data, or it is used to identify a Party. It cannot do both.

We need to clearly demarcate in the schema the difference between "definition" and "identification" and "reference". This is an architecture problem. Definition is all the data contined within the type. Idenitification is all the data used to identify the type. Reference is usually an intra-document link to a thing.

We need an architecture statement. My suggestion is that we establish to base types of "Identifier" and "Definition" and all types extend them appropriately.

A type defining party information. A party identifier, e.g. a S.W.I.F.T. bank identifier code (BIC). The name of the party. A free format string. FpML does not define usage rules for this element. Accounts serviced by this party. These are not accounts where this party is beneficiary, but instead where they are provided and by this party to the beneficiary party. The id uniquely identifying the Party within the document.