FpML Issues Tracker

Summary

Problem 1: Validation rule cd-5 does not cater for the scenario where either or both of //element(*, GeneralTerms)/(effectiveDate|scheduledTerminationDate) do not exist.

Problem 2: The existence of //element(*, GeneralTerms)/scheduledTerminationDate is sufficient for the existence of //element(*, GeneralTerms)/scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate. Or informally: if you have a scheduledTermination then you always have a adjustableDate because it makes adjustableDate's existence mandatory. You don't need to test for the prescence of adjustableDate, just scheduledTerminationDate is enough.

The current text of the rule is: " Context: GeneralTerms (complex type) cd-5 (Mandatory) If element scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate exists, then effectiveDate/unadjustedDate < scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/unadjustedDate. " I propose it is changed to: " Context: GeneralTerms (complex type) cd-5 (Mandatory) The existence of scheduledTerminationDate is sufficient for the existence of effectiveDate, and effectiveDate/unadjustedDate less than scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/unadjustedDate " btw - we agreed to use XPath paths and operators. "lt" (less than) has slightly different semantics to "<", but for this case they are equivalent. The corrected text more closely fits the business meaning, which is why it will be more tolerant of the MTF's refactoring of this to AdjustableDate2 in FpML 5.0.