Does anyone uses FPML at all?

QuoteOriginally posted by: SierpinskyJanitorDoes anyone uses FPML at all?FpMLWhile FpML brings structure in descriptions of financial contracts, as opposed to a "flat" collection of (name, value) pairs, FpML lacks semantics: the "meaning(s)" of a contract cannot be determined by simply looking at an FpML product definition. One needs an associated text such as ISDA definitions to fully understand an FpML contract specification and to be able to specify its behavior in the context of valuation or operational management. Object-oriented models that implement FpML attempt to bridge the semantics gap but have two inherent limitations: they are very difficult to design and, most importantly, the resulting model is not compositional (See "What do you mean by compositional?"). FpML describes contract types and lists the parameters needed to describe each contract category. FpML therefore obeys a standards logic that relies on a menu of contracts. While the menu attempts to be exhaustive, it ultimately cannot be. Because it is not compositional, FpML focuses on interbank contracts and does not support complex, client-driven transactions. ...

bottomline: useless crap? Still, where da hell can I get a copy of USER'S GUIDE TO FPML 4 - 2004 EDITION???

I have a friend who is using it as an interchaneg format between teams inside a single organization.I get the impression that for him, it's value is that it is predefined and neutral but that it's heavyweightand yet imprecise.

QuoteOriginally posted by: SierpinskyJanitorbottomline: useless crap? Still, where da hell can I get a copy of USER'S GUIDE TO FPML 4 - 2004 EDITION???http://www.fpml.org/??

no, have looked (vv briefly) at 1 or 2 of these markup systems and they seem to bring some baggage, not obvious what the benefits are. One person said designed by a committee has a lot of compromises. T.

From the FpMl website: 2. Major derivative categoriesDerivatives fall into two categories. One consists of customized, privately negotiated derivatives, which are known generically as over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives or, even more generically, as swaps. The other category consists of standardized, exchange-traded derivatives, known generically as futures. In addition, there are various types of product within each of the two categories as described below.

We are surveying FpML for internal use. It is designed for derivatives but we want to use it to exchange trading information of all trades (equity, futures, etc) between trading desks and risk management. We have to modify the schema to includes non-derivatives as products.I think it is great choice if you are dealing only derivatives, although it is really complicated, at least for us in Taiwan.