Date

05 Oct 2015

Attendees

Dennis Wisnosky

Decisions

Proceedings

20151005 FIBO FBC

This meeting is FBC and will be for the next couple of weeks before we move on toSEC

Goal: Identify the changes needed over the next couple of weeks.

Status: See Slide 2. FBC voted for issuance for comments. We will collect comments among ourselves on the EDM Council JIRA system. Aim is to be ready with most of the changes we need by January. Then can process additional comments in the FTF via the OMG JIRA system. Documents cannot be finalized until one of the OMG standards we depend on is also complete. FTF will either publish a Final version of FBC in March or ore likely in June 2016. The LCC spec that we depend on did not go through the first reading this time, so we will depend on a successful reading in the December OMG meeting in La Jolla. The earliest that can happen is March. Also there are changes required in Foundations per the FBC spec change to other standards, which need to be in place in Foundations ahead of FBC being Final. A couple of the open issue will have an impact on Seciuities. To discuss: Aim to put this one to bed and move on. Agreed (Richard et al).

Today we will identify the homework for next week. This spec went through with highly positive comments on the cleanliness and tightness of the document. Credit goes to Elisa for this.

Clarify what we mean by putting this to bed? Does that mean not starting on securities until this is finalized. No, but there are specific issues to address before we move on to securities so we need to get those issues out of the way. There are a couple of categories of issues that require more work; we will not hold the start of securities for those.

Slide 4 - list of what we submitted. Working with Makolab folks who did work on the LEI GLIEF registry. Would go in a tiny international jurisdiction ontology, so show how people can use FIBO to address legal entity / counterparty identification. Those parts were not yet submitted. The new Foundations material was submitted as part of FBC spec in section 6.4. There are few if any changes needed in the foundations ontologies submitted.

LCC itself (slide 6) is missing a couple of things. To be added. ISO 3166 country subdivision concepts these are listed rather than conceptualized in LCC and we probably need to add ones for EU including UK. Recommend we focus on country subdivisions for those countries are federations. For example Germany and CH. Do we need Asian and Middle Eastern countries, country subdivisions? Elisa suggests not. Again only certain countries have a federal structure or multiple policies e.g. the UAE, Brazil, India etc. This is very manually intensive work as the documentation is not tabular. We need to flag which of those federal countries we care about. Can we use other recognized sources of geographical data? E.g. the CIA World Fact Book. The challenge is that we have stated we are explicitly and only representing codes that are part of the ISO spec. Things are arranged such that people can add other kinds of codes. Pete - Where are the concepts? There is Federal state, territory, etc. These don't have all the synonyms e.g. Canton, but the concepts are in LCC. Pete- Did we deprecate these in FIBO? No we did not. So people could till use FIBO for these concepts and create their own instances. they can also create equivalences to FIBO for those, in any application.

Slide 7 outstanding issues. Need to create a red line version of Foundations for changes made in FBC, Per AB requirement. Also AB will no longer allow us to do any spec in MS Word. We must use either Framemaker or Libra Office. So far this is Andrew Watson's personal preference so we anticipate this will become a requirement. Elisa will take care of this for La Jolla.

Slide 7 gives the 9 most important issues. There are others. There is also a need for reconciliation with the changes David Newman has made in BE. Elisa will work with David on this, but this is a several month process. This also requires action by the BE FTF2 to agree precise changes. Further work on the spec with Wes Moore and Elie AbiLahoud of Quarule, have identified some concepts like selfregulating organization. This covers FINRA, GLIEIF and so on need a new concept for these. Also we don't have nominal account holders, as distinct from account holder and customer for the set of things that can perform this role to be complete. We are missing some of the EU regulatory agencies and repositories. Gareth and Mike to help with those. Also the International jurisdiction as wel as GLIEF. There may be others. We know about ECB and FMA and maybe others. Also identify whether these belong in EU Jurisdiction or International jurisdiction.

The 17 minor issues include tweaks to definitions. Elisa will do a spread sheet for these. Then decide if we are adding the high level services to differentiae between who regulates an entity in the EU. Also the UK. The UK is not unique in being a member of the EU and not a member of the Eurozone. Also some Scandinavian states are not members of the EU (specifically Norway). Some non Euro countries have some regulation by the ECB despite not having the Euro. Pete - Scandinavia as a term should be avoided. We need to be able to cover those GSIB banks that are regulated by the ECB. Nodea is regulated by the ECB despite not all using the Euro. This requires further investigation, which Gareth will help with. BE reconciliation, and the European regulatory question will take longer. Selfregulating piece will be fixed soon this affects securities. Also definitions for trade, position, holding and exposure. These are high level scaffolding and while they were slated for a future FIBO, they can now go in FBC. MB - There are abstractions in CIV legacy material which will help with these. SPVs were excluded fro BE but were not included in FBC. These need to be in FBC right away to support Equity and Debt securities. We would only need one class for SPV at its most generic, in FBC. The specific variants will come up in Debt and in Equities.

Homework (slide 8) - Work the gaps as above. Need more test individuals. Use cases. We may keep Section 7 at the general level it is now, and create an informative annex for specific details. Mike reviewed KYC before publication and concluded that at the level of generality that Section 7 had, there was nothing to add. So these should go in an annex.

Slide 10 has examples of thee competency questions. All: Please review the spec document. Some comments that have been received are till being processed. For KYC there are missing concepts in Foundations, e.g. family relationships. Executives are in BE. Make sure these cover what's needed for KYC. Need use cases for the Foundations ones i.e., what kinds of family relationships need to be added in the existing JIRA on that?

JIRA Issues Review: 12 major, 17 minor. Several separate JIRAs relate to the alignment with BE. Also JIRA issues covering new material, e.g. definition of a Trade. Citi already did the review of the list of regulators (FBC-27).

Minor ones: mainly definition issues. Some changes the FLT have identified e.g. qualified restrictions, also metadata to use for synonyms. Definition for Financial Instrument still needs closing out. Payee / payer. Specific ones will be looked at next week.

Homework: review these JIRA issues. Working on the Specification material page in the wiki (NOT the Draft page). Send issues to Elisa to file or file them yourselves on JIRA if possible. Elisa, Mike and Richard to work together on Mike's observation about the need to reconcile transferable contact vs bilateral contracts. Mike will raise an issue in FBC JIRA. Also in FND JIRA for any changes needed to Transferable Contract now that it's clearer what this is intended to be for.

There were some questions relating to how people know where the deeper foundational concepts in FND and BE are to be found.

Meeting slides –

Action items

Mike Bennett
Error rendering macro 'jira' : Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.

Browser not supported