20151027 FIBO-BE FCT
JIRA Issues: Main point of discussion is the process to get the resolutions of these JIRA issues into the OMG. All Net New content is frozen. The only net changes we would consider making outside of what is in the current JIRA issues would be changing some of the labels of the object properties in Ownership and Control. These are minor changes.
BE98 labels for partnership. The definition was inadvertently specified as a label. Change is made.
BE97 Municipal Government in Yellow but not in David's version (one of the Municipal concepts but not the other). When we discussed this, we wanted to add Municipal Government as well as Municipal Entity. This issue covers the additional concepts as well as the inclusion of the (differently named) existing concepts.
BE96 merging ontologies. Done
BE95 diffs: Dean is working on these. This is a 3 way diff between David Newman fork, current Pink, and BE Yellow. This will be covered in the strategy discussion later in this call.
BE93 For BE FTF charter to OMG MB did that. By email.
BE92 Elisa action on BE diff. Depends on the diffs above. DN will take this up with EJK tomorrow.
BE89 Organization hierarchy. Had considered that this was more an FND issue. MB asks to clarify what kind of hierarchy Pete had in mind here. PR: What hierarchy we have only allows the parent of a sub unit to be a legal organization. Is not possible to have one unit being a sub unit of another. The issue is how it is not possible for a sub unit to have a sub unit. MB agrees this is incorrect to the original intent of FND. The domain of Organizational Sub Unit is Contractually Constituted Organization and should merely be Formal Organization. This is likely a casualty of the early split of Formal Organization into 2 concepts. Mike speculates that this fell foul of the split of Formal Organization. HOWEVE, Elisa looks at the current FND spec and does not find this restriction there. So the restriction to make organizational sub units a kind of Formally Constituted Organization, is NOT in FND and the class itself is in BE so this could not have been in FND. Organizational Sub Unit is and should be a child of Formal Organization and there are no restrictions on this. So the issue as described does not exist in FND. So it is only possible for this restriction to have been added in BE. David did not add this as a restriction. Maybe hasSubUnit domain must have become FormallycontitutedOrganization? (this is speculation. Elisa: What we are seeing on screen is not in the BE that is on file with the OMG (Beta2). We do have hasSubUnit range of OrganizationalSubunit and domain is FomallyConsttutedOrganization. This is not in FBC, but DN notes that FBC points to FormallyConstitutedOrganization. We have established that the issue does not exist in FND. The concept of Organizational Sub Unit is in BE. So the change does need to be changed in BE not FND. Change the domain to FormalOrganization.
BE88 Beneficial Owner. Not yet addressed.
BE87 duplication of a definition, has been corrected.
BE86 incomplete ability to track shares held. Where we let this was the intro of Share in FND, open JIRA Issue in FND, inAccounting Equity. MB email the FND JIRA ref to DN for this.
BE85 shareholder constraint complaint. See commentary. This relates to the patterns we need to consider this kind of pattern anyway. In which case this would not be an error. We know there are going to be relationships between relative entities, this is one such. HOWEVER< another error spotted this property has 2 inverses. Raise a new JIRA issue for that. (the 2 inverses error not seen in Pink). The Diff exercise may surface this. Might be related to a name space issue. These are both in BE. Not duplicated in Pink where it is only in OwnershipParties. So the 2nd one is the rogue one to be removed. Is in DN Fork only.
BE84 OWL restrictions for Autonomous Agent sub classes. Is a general reminder to start providing restrictions not just a subsumption hierarchy differentiated only by restrictions. Should be an FLT issue to flag this as best practice. We need an FLT discussion about which kinds of classes are introduced without restrictions, as being axiomatic, externally grounded (e.g. capacities) otherwise you would go on for ever. Similarly partitions need to be underspecified. So we need a strategy on those. However there is a case for the Autonomous Entity hierarchy to be better specified by restrictions. Elisa would say No. Mike and David are saying it's not a Yes or No but the need for a best practice for when to provide restrictions. A Policy is needed. To be discussed at FLT.
BE83 Government Official. Not going to address this in this cycle.
We do have a loose definition for this, whereas (as usual) statutes go into more detail.
BE80 isRecognizedIn moved to FND. Forms part of the written definition of FormalOrganization but was not reflected in the restrictions. FND FCT looked at this but has not yet delivered the solution. The original property was intended to define the recognition of LegalPerson not the recognition of Formal Organization. These are different concepts. The recognition of FormalOrganization needs a different property with a different name to reflect the requirement for recognition of formal organizations. Would potentially need a higher level property which is ancestral to both. FND owns this problem. There is a case for a higher level property of recognition in general, with separate semantics for recognition of legal personhood and recognition of organization formality. This has to be introduced in Jurisdictions not in FormallOrganizations otherwise there would be a circular dependency. See comment in JIRA
BE80 for FND action. Includes the proposal for the parent property. isRecognizedIn will remain in BE as it relates to recognition of legal personhood.
BE79 religion and civic orgs. Deferred to the future. BExx S Corporation. Should become a sub class of privately Held Corporation. This was completed.
BE77 Trusts completed
BE76 object property chain. Pellett unresolved.
BE75 foreign corrupt practices. This will be in a plug in not core GovernmentEntitie RDF file. If it needs to import FBC it has to be in a new spec and can't be in BE. See previous conversations. The plugin can import FBC. (PR proposal earlier). EK: this is not a good practice. In OMG 2 specs should not have circular dependencies on one another. This is why it was previously proposed to have Government Entities as a separate Domain precisely to manage this potential circularity. This was discussed. That would have enabled GE to import FBC as well as BE. However there was also a dependency between FBC and Government Entities, due to regional government concepts. So we put GE back in. the plugin to GE was to be not specifically pulled in by FBC. See MB diagram on dependencies and the discussion around this at the time. The plugin would import GE and FBC, and FBC would have no dependencies on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We decided to do this anyway. PR: Why is this tracked as a circularity hen it is a separate ontology and plugin? EK sees the rule as having no circularities between the spec overall, as this might lead others to make circularities themselves. Happy to create a separate spec that identifies kinds of government organization indifferent jurisdictions and so on. If it is in BE even as a plugin it breaks a rule we don't want banks and others extending FIBO to do this. Perhaps we bundle up enough of the regulatory components into a regulations or a statutes domain, where we would have them all together, This Domain would be a separate Specification. Reg W and FCPA and others would come under this heading. This would also be prudent given that most regulations cast their definitions so broadly as to be unions of many disparate concepts. To be discussed further.
BE74 relabeling - Done. Add NGO. NGO was defined as a sub class of Non Profit Organization. NGOs seem always to be non profits. Non profits are formal organizations whose objective is not for profit. NGO narrows thi to some public purpose. There is a class Public Purpose. Where is that? PublicPurpose in BE is a child of Objective. No need to change anything here.
BE72 Execs should be legally capable persons. Are they not? Model shows hasIdentity as a LegallyCapablePerson which is right. We should review the SME review notes since it is possible that we identified an edge case where organizations can occupy executive roles: This is an edge case but (if it is borne out by the SME Review) then we should not lock in the assumption for all cases. We should not change the model to constrain things further without business evidence that this is a constraint always. A change in the definition in the cited dictionary actually says person or group, which is even looser. So there is no case to restrict this further. DN makes the point that our definition when it uses a word like Person, people would assume we were meaning the same by a word in a written definition, as is reflected by the concept with that word in FIBO, and not use definitions harvested in external sources wholesale. PR recommends we do this incrementally as we find those definitions. There are in any case a lot of definitions which are terminologically incorrect, or just plain incorrect, done to earlier substitutions from Internet sources. We cannot both reflect Internet sources, and be an internally consistent terminology. Our aim is to be terminologically consistent. Is it possible that any old Organization can be an Executive? We probably don't trust that Internet definition that said "Organization" anyway, the question was whether a formally constituted, legal person, could itself be an Executive. Again, we don't know so we would err on the side of caution. Relates to a distinction between Officer and Office. Would not affect specific offices like CEO and CFO, as these have specific legal requirements. By Office do we mean a sub unit, as a group of people, or do we mean a position? (we don't have Office at all in FBO now). Companies might e.g. have a CDO but might have a Data Governance Council, as in Nordea, but no CDO per se. So the requirement in some regulations to have such an office, would be met by some group of people (the CD Office or Data council in this case). So there are unclear edge cases, again, in the realm of Executive. (In the wonky Internet definition, it is "group" not an artificial legal person) support persons plural, not necessarily artificial legal person. The Business dictionary is the source for the discussion above, and has changed since we incorporated it into FIBO. And it does not have an ontology behind it. The broader question is whether we want to be regarded as the authority for what things mean, or are we simply providing some OWL applications that are based on some other authority. We do not know of examples of entities being executives, but until we know it absolutely cannot happen there is no case to change the semantics of the model from what it is now, to what David proposes. David proposes that the definition be enhanced with Group. MB notes that Group has a meaning in FBO which incudes a group of companies. So that would fall afoul of our newly minted rule for definitions. We would instead have to create a sub class of groups of people and reference that in that definition. But only after we have established that what David finds surprising is in at globally impossible. JB: how does this relate to the concept of an officer of the organization that can speak and make legally binding contracts on behalf of the corporation? This is correctly shown in FIBO as is. Strategy for moving this forward. Elisa can come to David's office, would like to first see that David and Dean are ready with proposed resolutions. DN expects them to have at least have the 3 way diffs. Still waiting for Dean to deliver that list.
- Dennis Wisnosky I created subtask - MB in BE-86 and DN in BE-85.