Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SecuritiesListing - consider whether the two MIC fields might be better structured #541

Open
kd-ods opened this issue Jan 24, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@kd-ods
Copy link
Collaborator

kd-ods commented Jan 24, 2024

Summary of the bug or issue
The two MIC fields operatingMarketIdentifierCode and marketIdentifierCode in the SecuritiesListing object have clunky descriptions. Additionally the validation is complicated since whether the exchange is a segment can only be inferred from the two MIC values (rather than being explicitly stated). All of this is somewhat a by-product of ISO 10383 itself. Nevertheless, there may be a nicer way of doing things.

Suggested resolution
One option to consider would be pushing the stock exchange info down a level and adding an isSegment boolean field, so:

"stockExchange": {
   "name": "XXX"
   "jurisdiction": "XX"
   "isSegment": T/F
   "marketIdentifierCode": "XXX"
   "operatingMarketIdentifierCode": "XXX"
}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant