FpML Issues Tracker

608: stubCalculationPeriodAmount should extend stubCalculationPeriod

February 29, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Modeling Task Force

Admin

BrianLynn

Summary

This one type is a subtype of the other:

https://dedicated.fpml.org/svn/fpml/trunk/src/schema/fpml-ird.xsd#StubCalculationPeriodAmount should extend https://dedicated.fpml.org/svn/fpml/trunk/src/schema/fpml-eq-shared.xsd#StubCalculationPeriod

Obviously this cannot be made a subtype today, but when the MTF considers consistency of stub modelling, this should be a subtype.

Notes:

  • mgratacos

    03/04/08 3:40 pm

    They are not exactly a subtype. The way the stub is expressed is different since the equities are it also includes the dates of the stubs while in the rates area the dates are defined in a different level.

  • matthewdr

    03/04/08 6:58 pm

    I agree it is not exactly a subtype today. I raised the issue because when the MTF considers the modelling and makes it consistent it should be a subtype in the future. Obviously the change cannot be made today, but at some point in the future the MTF should review this for consistency.

  • andrew

    09/12/08 3:43 pm

    I don’t think its possible to improve the design of these types in XML schema. Whilst they have a similar grammar ((initalStub,finalStub?)|finalStub) the types of the elements are different and there is no mechanism to reuse grammar but over ride the tops.

    As the IR model is simpler than the EQ version it looks like it might be feasible to derive it by restriction but FpML does not allow restriction.

  • h_mcallister

    10/28/08 1:25 pm

    The divergence of the “stub” types in Rates & Equities is intentional – please see issue 176.

    The original (IRD) Stub type was extended with supplementary dates for use in the Equities model. This had the undesired effect of making these dates available in IRD. The solution was to create distinct names for the core and extended types (although IMO, the IRD schema should have retained “Stub”, with the EQD model using a different name for the extended type – but it makes no difference to the instance document).

    http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=176

  • mgratacos

    02/09/11 5:07 pm

    The MTF didn’t refactor the stub models. I suggest closing the issue since the stub models won’t be changed in the near future.

    • 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