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.
- Vivian Wang, Fannie Mae firstname.lastname@example.org
- Pete Rivett, Adaptive email@example.com
- Cory Casanave, Model Driven firstname.lastname@example.org
- Vicky Starr, Fannie Mae email@example.com
- Sandra Recca, Fitch firstname.lastname@example.org
- John Gemski, Independent email@example.com
- Ron Forino, D&B firstname.lastname@example.org
- Pablo Miranda, Schwab email@example.com
- Andrew Metz, Schwab Andrew.firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dave Cobb, Schwab email@example.com
- Susan Green, Fitch firstname.lastname@example.org
- Suman Murali, D&B email@example.com
- Stefanie Stuart, D&B firstname.lastname@example.org
- Martin Troy, Schwab
- Jun Chung, Fannie Mae
- Michael Atkin, EDMC email@example.com
Michael Atkin (to Everyone): 11:11 AM: CC - goal for today - this is a collaborative process, there is a starting point but want adjustment
11:12 AM: CC - project initiated by FNMA - seeking feedback and alternative approaches to develop a set of ontologies around ratings
11:13 AM: CC - assumption that folks understand the basics about formal ontology and FIBO. Most of the discussion is designed to be at a concept level
11:16 AM: CC - FIBO system of record is OWL (also using UML diagrams) - objective is to harmonize data both internal and external for integration into applications. Using OWL also for inference capability (flexible analysis).
11:19 AM: CC - multiple level of ratings (and things to be rated) - but the core concepts are shared across uses. First step is generic concepts --> then more specific ratings ontologies for instruments and entities
11:20 AM: CC - essential concepts slide (five core concepts) - ratings scores (i.e. AAA, B+) and scales (assign meaning and ranking to scores) - these are reference information
11:20 AM: Rating scales are published by some rating agency
11:22 AM: CC - the "rating (fact)" is dynamic and created by the rating party to rate something
11:23 AM: SR - this is the highest level (makes sense) - think about the context of the rating and understand there are multiple parties involved in the rating process
11:26 AM: CC - model of the essential concepts (and the correspondence within the model) - and links to predefined concepts in FIBO
Ron (to Everyone): 11:28 AM: Does the modeling technique allow for subtypes?
11:28 AM: CC - (next level of detail) - rating has an "effective date" and is for a period. Concept of "rating issuer" (which may or may not be hte same as the rating party
11:29 AM: SR - word "rating issuer" is confusing. Keep in mind that what is being rated is different from the agency doing the rating
11:30 AM: CC - agreed - we need to get our language clear on the concepts associated with ratings
11:32 AM: SR - think about including the rating analyst (as one of hte "ratings party") - the individual performing the rating. Rating party could include the analyst as well as the ratings agency
11:33 AM: CC - will incorporate the concept of "party in role" to distinguish the actors in the process
11:34 AM: CC - model accounts for "ratings codes" (allowing for numeric values). Ratings score code is proposed for ordering ratings schemes
11:35 AM: SM - what's included in "ratings score"
11:36 AM: CC - scores = definition of code (issuer defines the semantics of hte ratings scale)
John Gemski (to Everyone): 11:37 AM: We need to clarify the difference between rating party and rating agency. To me they are the same. Maybe give an example of each?
Michael Atkin (to Everyone): 11:37 AM: PR - two dates are important (the day the rating was made as well as the date of coverage) - caution urged on the word "effective date"
John Gemski (to Everyone): 11:37 AM: Rating agency could itself be a role of party in role
Michael Atkin (to Everyone): 11:37 AM: CC - agreed - must capture these differences
11:40 AM: CC - example from Moody's (knowledge graph)
11:40 AM: JG - in diagram is Moody's a ratings agency or ratings party
11:40 AM: CC - in this case they are both
11:42 AM: CC - scope of activity is financial ratings. This conversation is starting with generic concepts that should be applicable to use cases beyond financial
11:44 AM: PR - credit ratings is another example - BoA could issue a FICO score (FICO is not a BoA concept)
11:45 AM: SR - possibly of different definitions for the same ratings concept (AAA from Fitch and Moody's might slightly differ based on the process of the ratings agency)
11:45 AM: CC - In this model - it is rating code as defined by rating agency
11:48 AM: CC - concepts of party rating an event and producing a report
John Gemski (to Everyone): 11:48 AM: Another thing we should show is the relationship between different rating scales. For example - Fitch Aa might equate to Moody's B.
Michael Atkin (to Everyone): 11:48 AM: CC - assessment activity (the rules for the rating)
11:51 AM: CC - definitions of relevant concepts for review (classes as well as the properties) - request is for review for business acceptance
11:52 AM: CC - introducing the concept of "notional" partitions - how many of these concepts can be defined at an industry level (shared) vs. those that are specific to the individual rating scale
11:55 AM: CC - Process (Wiki for documentation) - meetings schedule (weekly, Wednesday at 11:00) -- generic ontology (one month) -- specific areas to be determined
John Gemski (to Everyone): 11:59 AM: We need to specify whether we're modeling rating consumers or the rating process or both.
- Renaming “rating party to “rating agency”
- Renaming “rating issuer” to “rating scale publisher”
- Support for rating lifecycle for an agency, including the rating being initiated and withdrawn
- Support for the “rating performer” as the person or group that performs the assessment and defines the rating.
- Changed date property to “has date of issuance” (an existing FIBO concept