1) Use Case reminder.
2) Where we are on our road map.
3) Open Action Items
4 ) JIRA Issues Review
5) Todays content discussion.
6) For next week.
Slides from Securities Telecon, 11/30/2015 -
20151130 FIBO-SEC FCT
Meetings planning: Meeting on 14th. Meeting on 21st. The meeting on 14th is Securities. Equities starts in January.
FBC 2nd Reading (Sridhar): Summary is we met his requests, was happy to see the LCC 1st reading and says we can move to FTF for FBC on the basis of the status of this. Also says that LCC and FBC should be timed the same. Elisa notes that FBC itself might be later.
SEC ontologies are in GitHub. Need to be integrated with FBC. Specifically security classification and security assets. Some updates due in GitHub today before Pull Request is actioned.
Slide 4: Foundations Redline was created and was on time for Sridhar to review. Action closed. No further work on open issues this week. Have worked through BE reconciliation with David and Dean. Have a strategy for minimizing impact on FBC for these. Will we be ready to talk about Individuals (Gareth) after La Jolla? Gareth not here today, will be working on that.
Slide 5 status of what is in GitHub: Nearly everything is in GitHub, some to upload today. People to please review what will be in GitHub after today.
Slide 7 Securities Classification: There are 2 classes and an extension for financial instrument - not much to it. Classifier classifies a financial instrument and has its identification in a classification scheme. We should add individuals, for the CFI Classifier, to show that this works. Also potentially use the Bloomberg security type as a classifier? RB notes this is a challenge. Maybe there are other classification schemes?
Most of these are internal so don't belong in the ontology. Do we need an intermediate classification code and scheme pair in FBC? These are already in Foundations as a code and scheme for classifying anything at all; there are many financial things that are classified (loans, mortgages, ISDA product codes so called). However there doesn't seem to be a common concept across these, they just follow the simple pattern. Action: MB to think about whether there is merit in an intermediate financial product / contract classification code and scheme pattern or not.
Slide 10 Security Assets: Have seen some challenges with Asset. Here we mean by asset, an instrument owed by some party. What we mean by treated asset is a little bit circular. This definition is in AccountingEquity. The Price material in Foundations comes into play here. The concepts for portfolios and holdings are identified as a future FIBO specification (colored white in the FIBO status slide, as it was never modeled in Red FIBO). Portfolios and Holdings is needed for banks reporting very soon. The high level building blocks for these belong in FBC, with future extension in a separate Domain. Also retail deposit concepts are needed. MB and EK need to talk separately about the disposition of transaction concepts. Also we can talk more about portfolios. 00 Many of the concepts for Portfolio are derived from Red FIBO. These will have been in the CIV Domain. Many (most?) of the CIV based portfolio concepts need to be generalized up a level to refer to portfolios in general. Components of a Pf are Pf Holdings. And, these have owners as they are assets. So these are Assets and have the usual concepts of acquisition dates etc.
Need input from bank e.g. Mike Pool on these concepts. Initial reaction is that a Portfolio will have links to an owner. Will this cause some circularity in the definitions? At present Portfolio is a loose collection of holdings, which are themselves assets. This is all in GitHub or will be by tonight. Action: Mike Pool to take a look at what's in GitHub on Portfolio and makes sure it hangs together correctly.
A Pf would have an owner and the holdings have an owner which would be the same. Did not originally associate Pf with an owner in Red, that's been added. There are some fine nuances that won't have been teased out or will have been too specific to the Funds space in the Red FIBO material we are looking at. Security Holding is a kind of Portfolio holding held by a security holder. Don't like the definition of Security Holding. Portfolio and Portfolio Holding need to move up to FBC as a Pf holding may be cash, real estate and so on, and these are the building blocks for the future Portfolios and holdings work, which would need to build upon FBC. There were some original primitive concepts about holdings and asset, in the Red FIBO Securities Core, which should always have been both FBC and Securities-specific stuff, needing segregation . In general portfolio assets can include all sorts of things including real estate, private equity, and also high value items like jewelry and work of art. When we move these up to FBC we need to make sure the definition is right, (general enough). Is there "Holding" as a more general term? Or is it the case that by definition a Portfolio is any set of more than one holdings, i.e. holding a bunch of stuff is automatically defined as being "a portfolio" or do we want to limit this to the kinds of portfolios a financial institution might have, as a more specific thing? so this is a definitional question. Also stuff that is more specific.
Slide 14 SecurityHolder definition: some interesting things happen when you run the reasoner. it is inferred to be an Autonomous Agent which is independent not relative . This is because one of the properties of a securities holder was that they hold a security holding. This was rightly a relative to relative thing property, but may have been affected by some of the subsequent changes in the mediating pattern - so now we find that the domain was changed to AutonomousAgent where it should actually have been Relative Thing. If we were to change this to have a domain that is a relative thing, there would be an import circularity. So we need to remove the domain in Relations.rdf and then introduce the domain by way of restriction, in a later ontology that uses it. The property 'holds' has not previously been used. It was changed to have domain of AutonomousAgents because of the written definition. We could change the definition and the domain of holds, to have a domain of a kind of party in role, i.e. owner. We can revise this, now that we know which properties we need, we might reuse this word holds to carry the meaning of the relationship between the party in role and asset i.e. relative to relative. Action: MB and EK to work on possible dispositions of party in role, i.e. owner concepts.
Slide 15 homework: Reminder to review the ontologies we've looked at so far.
AoB: No meeting next week, we meet again on 14th and 21st but not 28th.
- Mike Bennett Think about whether there is merit in an intermediate financial product / contract classification code and scheme pattern or not.
- Michael Pool Within the next 2 weeks, take a look at what's in GitHub on Portfolio and makes sure it hangs together correctly.
- Elisa Kendall Mike Bennett Work on possible dispositions of party in role, i.e. owner concepts.