Set of Ratings Ontologies

Generic ratings concepts can be specialized for specific rating requirements such as credit or performance ratings. The initial work focuses on the generic ratings concepts.

Essential Concepts

Class Diagram of Generic (foundational) Rating Concepts (FIBO Production)

The following diagram shows the current draft of ratings concepts in UML notation. 

Recent Change log

  • added "has best measure" & "has worst measure"

Concept Definitions

The definitions spreadsheet defines each class and property used in the ontology.

Ratings Ontology Essential Definitions.xlsx

OWL Ontology File (Draft)

Ratings.rdf



  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Cory Casanave

    The following are suggestions from Pete Rivet with a response or resolution.

    PR view of Ratings

    Rating withdrawn or initiated is a process issue.  Don't create new concepts.  These are individuals (part of a rating lifecycle) - not sub-classes of ratings statement

    CBC These concepts represent a rating agency starting or stopping reporting of a rated entity, they are not the life-cycle of a particular scale. I considered some kind of standard "being rated scale" (as individuals) ,this seemed artificial, but it is an option that would make it simpler, so ok. I will remove rating statement and those subclasses.

    There is a lifecycle ontology within FND - these should provide the building block for the ratings goal

    CBC Not sure it applies.

    Question raised - why do you refer to "rating score" as a classifier (not clear by FND)?

    CBC Definition of classifier is: "a standardized classification or delineation for something, per some scheme for such delineation, within a specified context", seems to fit, even for numbers, but I would agree it adds little. These are just values.  So removed.

    Question - does this diagram only relate to credit rating (measure of probability of default)?

    CBC No, this is rating in general.

    Does the "concept of rating" exist in FND.  If this only relates to credit rating it belongs in FBC.  MB to raise this at the FLT

    CBC Discussed when this started and it was decided the generic concepts belong in FND

    PR - "rated entity" doesn't make sense as a class (as modeled this would be some kind of “relative thing”; better just to have “Thing”).

    Entities are not the only thing rated.  Securities are rated and have more concepts (i.e. guarantee)

    CBC It is just a local name for "thing" (<<Anything>>)  to be more recognizable to stakeholders. Securities are entities in this context.

    Formal statement - belongs in FND (a type of informational concept).  Look in provisional "Documentation" ontology – it is there.

    "Assessed by" is not the same as "attest to" - check these

    CBC Changed to ""produced rating" and "rated by"

    Relationship between "rating performer" is not used by a "rating agency" (check the meaning of "used by" in FIBO to make sure this is the right concept)

    CBC changed to "uses rating performer" / "produces ratings for"

    "has Date of issuance" is used incorrectly (wrong property) - check the "date/time" ontology.  Date has two meaning (when published and period covered).

    CBC Definition of "has date of issuance" is: "links something, typically an agreement, contract, or document, with the date it was issued", this seems correct, I don't understand the issue. What is the suggested replacement?

  2. Cory Casanave

    Please note the following changes:

    • term "rating issuer" was changed from "rating service"
    • addition of "rating agency"
    • dates associated with a rating
    • addition of "opinion"