FpML Issues Tracker

605: PaymentDetail

February 28, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Schema

Admin

andrew

Summary

The type PaymentDetail has a choice of two elements named PaymentAmount.

It would be more consistent with the Architecture (see issue #603), to have one element named paymentAmount and a Validation Rule to say you must have at least one of paymentAmount or paymentRule.

Today: Payment date. A fixed payment amount. A type defining the calculation rule. A fixed payment amount.

Proposal: Payment date. A fixed payment amount. A type defining the calculation rule.

Notes:

  • matthewdr

    02/29/08 12:28 pm

    Reassigned to schema.

  • mgratacos

    02/29/08 5:17 pm

    I disagree with this issue. The construct tries to avoid a non-deterministic content model by modelling the situation when paymentAmount OR paymentRule OR both (paymentAmount and paymentRule) can occur. The usual pattern is used to enforce that at least one element is present. We have the principle to enforce this sort of patterns using schema instead of validation rules.

    Issue 603 is a different issue since it is using schema extension and the two elements with the same name representing different concepts may occur at the same level so one of the elements should be renamed.

  • matthewdr

    02/29/08 5:23 pm

    Issue withdrawn following feedback.

    • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.

    Report an Issue

    The FpML Issues Tracker is designed to facilitate public interaction in the standard.

    By registering you will be able to submit corrections and comments, generate reports, and view the complete issues archive for FpML.

    Report Issue