Elsevier UK Jobcode:QMS Chapter:ch10-h6839 31-7-2007 9:17p.m. Page:151 Trimsize:165
Fonts used:Times & Optima Margins:Top:13mm Gutter:25mm Font Size:10/13 Text Width:120mm Depth:41 Lines
Reference data management 151
Alternative solutions to securities definitions
So, what are the alternatives to the hierarchical message design approach as deploped
by earlier versions of MDDL? Version 3 removes the instrument hierarchy (domains,
classes and subclasses) and replace it with a single instrument domain. This results
in all instrument specific terms and thier existing relationships being grouped under
the InstrumentDomain
Another solution is to use the building block approach to designing your own
securities definitions message model. This technique involves creating instruments
from a small set of components (including the likes of instrument identification,
issuance, payment details and so on). This does mean that all components and the
majority of their properties being optional, making it difficult to enforce schema
validation. However it has the advantage of being able to support instruments that
bridge multiple asset classes. Figure 10.15 shows how an Index-linked bond could
be represented using the building block approach.
<!-- Instrument Identification -->
<name>MCS Bank Standard and Poor's 500 Equity Linked Bonds</name>
<code codeType="isin">US12345UED28</code>
<code codeType="cusip">12345UED2</code>
<code codeType="commonCode">012345678</code>
<!-- Issuance Terms normally found in the Term Sheet or Prospectus -->
<maturityDate maturityType="fixed">2011-11-26</maturityDate>
<governingLaw>New York</governingLaw>
Figure 10.15 A Index-linked bond based on a building block message design
approach (Continued/)

Get MDDL and the Quest for a Market Data Standard now with O’Reilly online learning.

O’Reilly members experience live online training, plus books, videos, and digital content from 200+ publishers.