[This message was posted by Zoltan Feledy of State Street Global Advisors <zoltan_fel...@ssga.com> to the "Algorithmic Trading" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/31. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/3501811d - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Steve, This is an interesting observation, likely born of a well thought out implementation. I must say that maintaining anything like this scares me a great deal. Brings back bad memories of us trying to maintain a list of codes for exchanges in FIX.4.2, which we then amended in the extension, and finally abandoned by FIX.4.4 when we went with an ISO specification which even though someone else now does the work of maintaining the data you are still responsible for getting the latest data sets. I find the algo space very competitive with people continuously inventing ever so creative names to brand their products. My only worry would be "Mary and Larry's Brokerage" trying to publish their VWAP algo in a copycat fashion as ML-VWAP in hopes that it may get confused with that of a bulge bracket firm. I do see the risk of the top 20 or so providers clashing as quite small. Perhaps an alternate solution would be to assign unique id's as you read through the file and adding that to your identifier (Strategy/@providerID, Strategy/@name) so that 1-ML-VWAP and 2-ML-VWAP could peacefully co-exist should it arise in reality. Just my thoughts... Cheers, Zoltan > In a FIXatdl 1.1 file, the field 'providerID' within the Stategy element is > defined as follows: > > Identifies the firm providing the algorithm. > > As I understand the spec, it is up to the FIXatdl file author to make up > something appropriate, but this means that there is every chance of clashes > of providerID between different providers. This might not seem like a big > deal, except for the fact that it makes sense for OMS/EMS implementations to > use the combination (Strategy/@providerID, Strategy/@name) to uniquely > identify a given strategy for a given provider. > > I would like to propose that we establish a register of providerIDs to be > used within FIXatdl files (e.g., 'CITI' for Citigroup, 'BARC' for Barclays > Capital, 'GSET' for Goldman Sachs, etc). What do others feel about this > proposal? [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:unsubscribe+100932...@fixprotocol.org] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to fix-proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fix-protocol+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
