FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Architecture
Admin
andrew
Summary
The architecture document should clarify whether it is permitted to require content must be in a specific order or sequence.
For exmaple eqd-7 "The elements in bermudanExerciseDates/date should be in order, earliest date first."
Is this type of rule permitted in the schema? This cannot be specified in a schema, and can only be added in a constraint/rule.
My personal opinion is that: Order has significance in an XML document, but not in an XML Schema model of the XML document. I suggest we follow the UML2/OCL lead, where instances have order, but the model cannot attach semantics or require a particular order.
Notes:
h_mcallister
08/15/07 3:13 pm
This is a poor candidate for a validation rule, as the word “should” has the force of a recommendation, not a requirement.
Ordering is explicitly not required in other FpML contexts, e.g.:
“A list of steps may be ordered in the document by ascending step date. An FpML document containing an unordered list of steps is still regarded as a conformant document”
polis
08/16/07 2:18 pm
UML2.1 permits order to be specified at association ends by attaching the property strings {ordered} or {sequence}.
[UML: Superstructure v2.1 ptc/2006/04-02, 7.3.3 Association. p40 in my copy]
I agree that XML Schema cannot enforce that rule.
matthew
08/16/07 2:44 pm
UML 2.x add ordering to M1, it does not add it to M0, which is what we are discussing here.
mgratacos
08/23/07 1:50 pm
To require data must be in a specific order is not permitted. For example, enforcing an FpML document to contain an ordered list of steps is not permitted.
mgratacos
09/17/07 3:15 pm
This has been added to the trunk. It will be published in 2.1 Trial Recommendation.