CDM Contribution Review Working Group - May 6th, 2025

[eteridvalishvili]

CDM Contribution Review Working Group Minutes

Meeting Host: Lyteck Lynhiavu, ISDA

Date

May 6th, 2025 - 10 am EST / 3 pm BST

Untracked attendees

• Fullname, Affiliation, (optional) GitHub username

Meeting notices

• FINOS Project leads are responsible for observing the FINOS guidelines for running project meetings. Project maintainers can find additional resources in the FINOS Maintainers Cheatsheet.

• All participants in FINOS project meetings are subject to the LF Antitrust Policy, the FINOS Community Code of Conduct and all other FINOS policies.

• FINOS meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of FINOS and the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Please contact legal@finos.org with any questions.

• FINOS project meetings may be recorded for use solely by the FINOS team for administration purposes. In very limited instances, and with explicit approval, recordings may be made more widely available.

Agenda

• Convene & roll call (5mins)
• Display FINOS Antitrust Policy summary slide
• Review Meeting Notices (see above)
• Approve past meeting minutes
  • CDM Contribution Review Working Group - April 15th, 2025 #3603
• CRWG Kanban Board: CDM CRWG
• Upcoming minor releases
  • 6.6: May 09, 2025.
  • 6.7: May 23rd, 2025.
• AOB, Q&A & Adjourn (5mins)

Minutes

• Previous minutes approved
• Workshop on "Implementing Workflows and Business Events using CDM" has been scheduled
  • Two half days, June 23 (hybrid: limited, in person seating in London + remote) and July 9 (remote only).
  • The event will be held in the UK afternoons / US mornings
  • Provides an opportunity to ask implementation questions and discuss lifecycle event-related issues
    Topics can be submitted in advance to llynhiavu@isda.org
• Upcoming minor releases - Leo noted the next planned release is the end of the week (including continuation of the migration of ISDA foundations). the next one is in two weeks (content TBD)
• CRWG project board
  • Follow up items
    • Eligible Collateral enhancements for Securities Lending #3438 Chris noted no update, relying on the next issue
    • CDM Technology Architecture Working Group - December 5th, 2024 #3219 Georgina noted TH updated the model, ready for review at the steerco. Leo clarified the item was previously proposed, reviewed and approved at the CRWG, since then there was an intra-maintainer discussion. that has evolved, and and the new proposal is is kind of
      lines up with what was previously approved. But introduces that that intermediary layer called organization, which is not a concept that exists in the CDM today but which, based on the discussion, would be a useful concept. That additional level looks like it's something useful that could be reused in other places in in the model. At the steering working group we are not meant to be discussing the technical ins and outs of the proposal, but more merit of introducing a backward, incompatible change. I think the technical validation will continue to happen in the CRWG. Tom didn't have a chance to review yet. There is no urgency.
    • ISDA Foundations Deprecation: Migration of ISDA Foundations components to CDM #3561
  • Current items
    • Addition of ISDA Master Agreement terms to new master.isda namespace #3619 Oscar presented. No comments. No objections. Approved.
    • Final cleanup of CDM and ISDA Foundations components #3589 Oscar presented the six points in scope. No comments. No objections. Approved.
    • FpML coding schemes validation through typeAlias conditions #3512 Manuel responded to additional concerned added at the end of the issue. A deep dive session will be scheduled for the TAWG audience.
      • Dan asked whether a modeler will be able to use the values that have been pulled in, not the base values, but the overridden values that have been pulled in in modeling? Yes, because there are strings. So basically, you can add any kind of a string and the external validation will handle, whether that string is valid or not on that specific attribute. in other words, the modeler needs to know what a good value would be in the externally retrieved data.
      • Dan asked whether there a specification in the event that we want other language support than Java. Manu noted that basically, the only thing you need to support on your other language is resource resolution from the file, disk or memory. And with that solve what we are specifying. Here is the 2 parameters of the validation function, but also the loading function. So since the loading function is a Rosetta function.
      • Marc clarified that they are not creating anything new in terms of the the data. This data shown on the ticket with the Json representation is data that is coming from FpML.
      • Dan: If the loaded lists are in a jar, then they're not accessible to other languages necessarily accessible to languages other than Java? Manuel rebutted that wasn't the case. There is the a Maven lifecycle event has been upgraded in the POM file that handles the generation of these files from the XML resources. So basically, what a user should do onwards should be upgrade the XMLs and
        the build should include the the sources whenever needed for other languages as well. Manuel can show that in the deep dive technical review (separate from the TAWG meeting)
      • The CRWG gave preapproval / provisional approval which can move the issue and PR forward. Leo seconded. The power of approval is to the TAWG.
    • Update in the QuantityDecreasedToZero to Correctly Handle Zero-to-Zero Quantity Changes #3625 Georgina presented. Nick asked how it would work with multiple trade lots. There is no impact because the function is only used as part of other functions that have one trade lot as input. Leo clarified procedural comment, which is, as a general rule, we don't need to have bug fixes approved at the CRWG. This can be directly approved by maintainers. However, in certain cases the the contributor or the Maintainer may choose to air the problem under CRWG, but this is more for information only, so that people are aware. But in this case it looks like a straight bug fix. The function does not behave as it was intended.
      • The group discussed a question from Nick as to why does quantity change instruction allow even go from 0 to 0? Leo clarified the reason why we can go from 0 to 0 is because the price and quantity change Primitive are all into one. Sometimes you could be just changing the price and and keeping the quantity the same. So that's the reason which is potentially, you know, another set of discussion that that we can have.
        • Nick was not entirely convinced. the scenario is moving from execution to contract formation. The only thing you can change in a contract formation is, add the legal agreement. So if on that event there is no quantity change instruction, why this function would ever even run. ACTION: Georgina and Nick to discuss offline. The output of that chat will be added to the issue as a comment.
    • Add new intent of "MarkToMarket" #3582 Chris presented. Leo and Nick had questions. Chris used the term mark to market, because it's recognized in securities Lending is the term for the valuation. if there's something which we feel is a better cross domain naming of the mark to market, Chris would be happy to discuss.
      • Leo understands why Chris is saying it's actually a valuation, not an observation. The price may come as an input. But then you are really performing a mark to market of the collateral. Leo has concerns making an already mixed bag of events intents a further mixed
        also, mark to market, what you're saying is, we are valuing the collateral. So mark to market as a world doesn't really indicate that now that in the economic terms of a product. Now that we've clearly separated which is the main component of the product versus the collateral.
        I'm wondering if a better way of achieving. That is not, within the valuation history. We not only are able to record the valuation of we, we are effectively able to independently record the valuation of the 2 components, which is, on the one hand the the main part of of the trade, and, on the other hand, the collateral effectively bifurcating what's in valuation. The reason I'm saying that is because if you had that bifurcation. then you would recover the ability to qualify the fact that you are reevaluating the marked market of the collateral by saying that it's that second branch that got updated. And that may be a bit more satisfactory that comes obviously at the expense of of changing
        slightly well, changing the structure that we have in valuation today. But equally and especially when I think of reporting, this is actually something that could be quite useful to separate, you know, reporting of the mark to market of the trade versus mark to market of the collateral.
      • JB suggested a generic idea to use referencing. keep the valuation history as a single list, but basically from different locations, e.g., this is clearly this is related to collateral. This is related to the trade. It doesn't change the listing. So you push like a list of history, of fixing. You push a history of of valuation. You could push a history of cash flow.
    • Define who pays / receives (Party1 / Party2) for a Tradeable Product's embedded payout #3590 (approved) Tom noted there is now a PR associated. Add product issuer #3567 AssetType missing from Product #3559 We ran out of time. Tom asked members to review and comment
• AOB - none

Action Items

• CDM workshop on workflows / events - Topics can be submitted in advance to llynhiavu@isda.org
• Update in the QuantityDecreasedToZero to Correctly Handle Zero-to-Zero Quantity Changes #3625 Georgina and Nick to discuss offline and update the issue with the outcome of discussion
• Add product issuer #3567 AssetType missing from Product #3559 members to review and comment

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/96436091087?pwd=TUZMYm1KdGt2YWtxdDVHY3BpQzh0QT09
Meeting ID: 964 3609 1087
Passcode: 238896

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/a3KWGNquN

[eteridvalishvili]

Eteri / FINOS

[brianlynn2]

Brian Lynn / GEM

[Oscar-Twomey]

Oscar Twomey / REGnosys

[chrisisla]

Chris / ISLA

[AkashP-REGnosys]

Akash Patel / REGnosys

[nicholas-moger]

Nick Moger / JPM

[ijuradoTH]

Imanol Jurado / TradeHeader

[manel-martos]

Manuel Martos / TradeHeader

[lolabeis]

Leo Labeis / REGnosys

[kziemski]

Kryspin Ziemski/ QCOMPUTE

[jonathan-jpmc]

jonathan-jpmc

[mgratacos]

Marc Gratacos / TradeHeader

[iansloyan]

Ian Sloyan FINOS

[tomhealey-icma]

Tom Healey/ ICMA

[gtarres]

Georgina Tarres / TradeHeader