1) Use Case reminder
2) Where we are on our road map.
3) Open Action Items
4) JIRA Issues Review - https://jira.edmcouncil.org/projects/IND/issues/IND-17?filter=allopenissues
5) Todays content discussion.
6) For next week.
We returned to the set of actions that we need to be able to represent in our core corporate actions ontology today. The set of actions that the GLEIF represents is available at https://www.gleif.org/content/2-about-lei/6-common-data-file-format/1-upcoming-versions/lei-cdf_version_3.1-documentation.html.
We need to revisit some of the alignment issues and raise issues in FIBO to get better alignment, but also understand how to keep in sync going forward. Some things, such as enumerated values, we may want to simply delete from FIBO and reuse the GLEIF ontology directly for that, such that if these lists are modified there is minimal impact on FIBO, for example.
One insight around the information we are attempting to model is that there are actions that have taken place in the real world, and there are notices that provide evidence about those actions. There may be multiple notices associated with a given action, and that provide details including announcements, something about the in-progress state of the world related to that action, notices that an action has been completed or occurred, and notices that reflect cancellations of something. The concept of an action and evidence for it may have been something that MB originally attempted to capture when he modeled some messages, but what is needed here is the idea that an action is evidenced by something, and related to that, the provenance of that evidence. There are multiple news feeds, including ISO 20022 message feeds, GLEIF notices, and so forth that provide that evidence. The actions themselves should represent the real events that impact shareholders, fund management, creditors and indices, whereas the myriad of notices from ISO 20022/SWIFT and the GLIEF are evidence supporting those events.
The model should allow representation of (1) the action, and (2) evidence related to the action, in other words. Some actions are simpler than others - single events such as a change in headquarters, that will impact the master data banks and other organizations track, and the notices provide information regarding that move - when it is anticipated or has occurred, for example. Others related to mergers and acquisitions are more complex and there may be multiple notices regarding the steps in the process that institutions need to monitor that impact the securities, indices, loans, and other things they care about with respect to the businesses involved in those actions. Our model should allow for both, with the notices pointing to the action rather than the other way around. See PPMN (OMG) and PROV (W3C) for models that may help us capture this properly. We should avoid modeling cause and effect or the things involving the generic market perspective related to some business, scoping the model specifically to represent the actions that can affect financial instruments and the details related to the issuers / holders and master data they track rather than attempting to cover the broader picture. Ashwin's original use case is really the target here.
To be continued ...