2016-05-17 Meeting notes
- Dennis Wisnosky
Date
Attendees
Agenda:
1) Use Case reminder.
2) Where we are on our road map.
3) Open Action Items
4 ) JIRA Issues Review
5) Todays content discussion.
UML
Spreadsheet
Protege
6) For next week.
Proceedings: 
20160517 FIBO-BE FCT
DN Resolution O nearly complete by DA. Resolution T needs work.
Elisa concerned about how to do jurisdictional plugins location. Perhaps Foundations, but missing definitions. Needs to be architected so that they are reusable by other Ontos. Delete somethings like Federal Reserve District and keep in others. Would require urgent issues in 4 specs at the same time. DN: Let's make this a priority for Resolution S.
DN to Elisa: Show us what has been built to date. Displays Gov Entities and Business Entities and Juridical person.
Elisa also shows other adds in FBC Protege based on what DN has said that he needs for BE. Elisa used various individuals to test FBC. Inferencing was proven to work in various jurisdictions such as 12 Districts. Elisa likes 12th best because she lives there and it includes Hawaii.
DN: Goal is to create legal kinds of Jurisdictions. Elisa: We are pushed into the next meeting cycle for IND. Therefore need to work on US Jurisdictions in the Sept OMG meeting cycle. IND was delayed because of new people with new ideas.
DN: Elisa showed lots of content that overrode Gov Entities that had appeared in other places. Elisa: Changes mostly came from MB. DN: Now need to realign, e.g. autonomous agent to a relative thing.
Elisa: Polity is an example of a concept that moved up the food chain, but unchanged from what DN had in BE.
DN: Need to realign to BE-96. Legal Entity for example, is being deprecated as a term. DA: When LE was deleted, Top Braid showed 3 uses of this in FBC. What to do? Elisa: Process is that the OMG FTF must agree on these changes. Vendor SW has been implemented based on BE being already in FIBO. So, if this is taken out, the OMG incremental change process must be followed.
DA to DN: What is the order of Gov Entities and Legal Entities. Gov Entities followed LE.
DN: LEI Eligible Entity replaces LE because of confusing associations. That was the reason for the change. Elisa: Not opposed to making that change, but needs to look at the extent, e.g. how does it change the class hierarchy? DN: Understands there is an impact either way. Must be aligned with future direction. Elisa: And be aware of those who have implemented already. Bobbin: Need to be aware of the changes that we make after a FIBO goes Green.
DN: Compromises made because of arbitrary time frames. Elisa: Every standard organization would have dates also. OMG is the fastest of the standard bodies wrt processes.
Elisa: Changes shown by DN exist only in BE Wiki and not anywhere else. They were already in FBC before put into BE.
DN: Where do we go from here? Elisa: Set up a time with MB to go over Gov Entities. DN: We have done that, and MB agreed. But, it did not go into OMG version. We did resolution K. So, why did this not go into submission? Elisa: Because MB did not know how to test. Must test. DN: Did test in BE-96. Elisa: Maybe, but more changes made after that. DN with DA is overlaying new work with OMG March submission. Not doing M and N. L, F, E went in. K, O being worked on now.
What to do with Legal Person? Do we keep LE as a parent of Juridical Person? DN: Concern is that someday legallycapablePerson could get an LEI. Elisa: We could change it then.
DN to DA: Can we reverse all back to what was done in FBC? DA was offline and did not answer.
Elisa: Polity is an example of moving classes because of real world needs, not guessing what might happen in the future. For example Polity is a child of legalPerson. DN: Then, there are 3 types of legalPerson. How can that be? Elisa: When we add disjointness in the right places, then it all works. DN: Except that definitions are not correct. Elisa: When we add equivalents, they are correct. We can add this and break nothing.
DN: Causing way to much friction. What to do? Need to take route of least resistance and move forward. Elisa: Then focus on new material and leave existing alone. Bobbin agrees because people are implementing, so don't make structural changes. Elisa: Make only additive changes where possible.
DN: OK, can live with these changes. But, why should Gov move out of autonomous agent and not be a thing in itself? Elisa: Look at the definition of Gov and add provenance to that. DN: Should be there. Elisa: Most of what is there can be proven to be correct. The logic works. It is functional. MB also said this. Just moved it, did not change any definitions. This is a new onto, so we could change it.
DN: On an abstract level, makes sense, but on an operational level does it? Elisa: The tests prove yes. E.G. govBody. DN: Did you move all of the children to be relative things? Elisa: No. When instances are created, then the logic works as proven by the tests. All of the restrictions don't apply for example to govEntity which is an abstract concept until a restriction is applied. DN: Gene Katz of WF said that an LEI does not determine a legalPerson. It is if that person can be named in a lawsuit. Elisa: As an instance, it is true.
DN: Need to go back and reconfer with the atty. Concerned that people will be looking for detail that is not in FIBO. Elisa: The Function of Gov is performed by the Gov is the point. It is a Functional Entity. We could move Gov up and the inferencing would still work.
Decisions:
Action items
- Dean Allemang David Newman DN to DA: Can we reverse all back to what was done in FBC?