Please note that the FpML website will be down for maintenance from 6-8pm, New York time, on December 7, 2023. For further information email info@fpml.org
FpML Issues Tracker
518: FpML ird – review cardinality on Stub complex type
November 7, 2007
closed
Minor
Always
Schema
Admin
mgratacos
Summary
The Stub complexType has defined as 1..* but the documentation consistently says that there can be up to two rates specified - suggest we change the cardinality to 1..2 instead.
Notes:
h_mcallister
11/07/07 3:23 pm
Agreed – one instance of Stub/floatingRate signifies the (non-interpolated) tenor applicable to the stub, two instances signify the boundary tenors for linear interpolation, more than two instances are not meaningful.
On the subject of stubs, I suggest that we modify the content model of StubCalculationPeriodAmount to enforce the presence of at-least-one-of
(initialStub, finalStub) – at present both are optional. This would give a
model similar to that of eq-shared StubCalculationPeriod:
Adopting this change is backward-compatible with all compliant (and therefore meaningful) instance docs, and renders validation rule ird-38 redundant:
Context: StubCalculationPeriodAmount (complex type)
Either initialStub or finalStub must be present.
Notes:
h_mcallister
11/07/07 3:23 pm
Agreed – one instance of Stub/floatingRate signifies the (non-interpolated) tenor applicable to the stub, two instances signify the boundary tenors for linear interpolation, more than two instances are not meaningful.
On the subject of stubs, I suggest that we modify the content model of StubCalculationPeriodAmount to enforce the presence of at-least-one-of
(initialStub, finalStub) – at present both are optional. This would give a
model similar to that of eq-shared StubCalculationPeriod:
Adopting this change is backward-compatible with all compliant (and therefore meaningful) instance docs, and renders validation rule ird-38 redundant:
Context: StubCalculationPeriodAmount (complex type)
Either initialStub or finalStub must be present.
h_mcallister
11/07/07 3:25 pm
Correction: the type declaration in the previous Note should read:
…
mgratacos
11/09/07 7:40 pm
Harry, do we need working group approval for implementing these two changes? they seem pretty straightforward to me.
h_mcallister
11/12/07 4:54 pm
Agreed, the changes are really just technical rationalisations, however I’d like to have them endorsed by the group.
mgratacos
12/03/07 11:11 am
Marc,
Hi, we have had only favourable feedback so let’s proceed with the change – I guess we’ll be targeting the third working draft now?
Best regards,
Harry
mgratacos
12/03/07 11:28 am
This has been committed to the trunk and it will be published in the third working draft for version 4.4.