2015-10-08 Meeting notes

Date

08 Oct 2015

Attendees

Decisions:

The current diagram of the Loan core ontology is on our meeting page at the following link:

https://wiki.edmcouncil.org/display/LOAN/2015-10-08+Meeting+notes

If you are not able to access this link, please let me know, and we can iron out your access issues.

Please also review this diagram and come prepared with your questions and comments. We will enter them all as addressable issues in our next meeting.

In Summary, please review the following for next week:

Spreadsheet with definitions
Diagrams of Loan core

Discussion items:

20151008 FIBO-Loans FCT

Meeting structure change – “Technical and Business” structure changed back to one meeting, at this time. This meeting: want to be more organized about how we take comments into account. We will be using JIRA to track these. Does not imply that the commenter's idea will be what is implemented, but this lets us track the conversation arising out of each comment so none are lost.

JIRA Review (3 unresolved issues) - LOAN163. Relates to OMG documents. Michael and Lynn are working on this one.

LOAN18 links to upper ontology URIs. This is partly completed. About 70%. MU has connected most of the classes, needs to look at some of the properties still. "In Progress".

LOAN17 Perpetual notes Jeff is unavailable today, is working on that.

Slide 7 - View of loans to have in the longer term, for scaffolding we can use. Lets us hang our concepts from that scaffolding. This is in review. Today we will look at definitions for the classes in this. Will continue to review the scaffolding and the links of these concepts to the FIBO upper ontology. Today: Upper ontology connections first.

See slides from MU. Priorities are core loan concepts, linkage to upper ontology and dry run of the OMG process. Dry run will use the core ontology. Recent work covers MISMO review, upper ontology linkages and parties filling roles. MISMO is mortgage industry specific. Uses XMLM Schema to represent mortgage loan information specifically. Part of the upper ontology thinking relates to how we will relate the various kinds of parties filling roles, e.g. borrowers, lenders, third parties such as appraisers. MISMO was created by its own body, called MISMO (O Organization). Used for messaging among lenders investors, services providers, with a scope specific to the USA. This is in use for messaging among participants in the industry, comparable to how XBRL is in use.

Jim Cooper has converted these XSDs into OWL. Of course an XSD is not an ontology, it is specific to messaging. So a lot of manual work was required to turn the OWL into an actual ontology. This benefits people like MU who are less familiar with XML, can see in Protege. So how can we make use of that? e.g. could be a starting point, whereby people familiar with MISMO can identify what needs to be in the ontology. The strength of the MISMO material is in the granular detail of characterizing concepts in a real transaction context. At present the FIBO Loan material consists of very high-level concepts, whereas when we go into more details into the mortgage vertical the MISMO material will be helpful. Jim: adds that this will be a resource for creating data properties on our classes.3: Connecting to FIBO Upper Ontology concepts. See e.g. generic terms around Contract, Agreement Party and so on, which were known. These were connected up last week. MB can assist both with identifying existing abstraction, and identifying work that Foundations FCT needs to add or flesh out in those upper ontologies, to support Loans. Every concept is ultimately 'kind of' some more high-level concept. Mike Bennett and Michael Uschold will work together on some of this at the weekend. See example mappings in slide, e.g. Monetary Amount. Note also that in the upper ontology there is a distinction between a concrete amount of money, and monetary amount as a measure. Both exist in FIBOFND and we may need both in Loans. Accounting balance what a balance tracks versus where funds actually are. This may require further accounting concepts refinement in FND Accounting. This will be needed in loans servicing. Category is just something like skos:concept. Catalog corresponds to product something listed in a catalog so people can purchase it. Covers all product and service, including financial products (in FBC)

Content = Document (FIBO information construct type, may extend this in FND to meet this need). Asset has a couple of possible meanings. Asset as something that someone does own, versus asset as a potential asset(economic resource). Insurance Type - Nothing in FIBO upper ontologies for this at present. We could just do an enumeration for this at present, with possible future extension into actual ontological models. We may not need that now. We will need a lot of detail on insurance. There is a concept of Coverage Type, that iterates fire, earthquake and the like. We may need to bring in someone (and concept) from ACORD for the insurance concepts. ACORD is like MISMO for insurance. (note the spelling one C). Also mortgage insurance on the contract itself. And variations thereof. Real Estate - This is currently a bit hazy in FIBO Foundations and needs work. What do you actually own? We don't need the jurisdictional details on the variant with this, but should model what is common to all, not something that ends up being wrong in some jurisdictions e.g. France. Ownership of a plot of land (freehold). What about Leasehold? Somewhere along the line a plot of land is owned by someone. But mortgagees may not always refer to that, it may be a mortgage on a 100 year or 9999 year ease for example. So these need to be distinct. What we need to distinguish is "Property" which would cover auto, land, lease hold etc. being something that is owned. So that's an Asset. Construction Loans are securitized against a building you haven't built yet. You may have a lease on the land on which you would be building that building. Then there's cooperative units, where you are acquiring the right to occupy the right to occupy a unit in the building, while the cooperative association owns the building. There are also rights to use shared parts of that piece of real estate.09 Again some of the jurisdictional variations may cut across this (e.g. leasehold is very common in the UK and rare in the USA. Hence rights and responsibilities as per the slide. see diagram 9, in Semantic Arts Visio ontology format) Collateral Agreement exists on many but not all loans. Collateral when put up, is something that is an asset. A mortgage is such a thing, where some real estate is the asset put up as collateral. So it's in this context we need to identify what we mean by real estate. Loans are secured or unsecured, and secured loans are secured by guarantee or by collateral. Collateral is a relative thing, who hasIdentity relation is potentially Real Estate. So Real Estate is an independent thing which in the context of collateral, plays the role of Collateral. (as would e.g. a boat or something).

Comment: be able to put this alongside other things that can be used as collateral e.g. cars, boats. and regard each of these as someone's property, which an then be put up as collateral. Also mobile homes, houseboats etc. where the collateral is something physical. Conversely, a leasehold can be the kind of property which is a leasehold and not a physical thing. So these are all kinds of Property. There is real property and improved property in MISMO. MISMO has size (some turf) and improvements on that land). Property as a word can mean something that someone owns (qn Asset), and it can mean kinds of building as per the improved versus unimproved property spoken of in MISMO. What goes in the loan application? The legal description of the thing that is being used as collateral specification of the asset being used as collateral.

Decision - Add a JIRA issue to tease out some of these concepts and revisit what's in the upper ontology and what needs to be tightened up there or in Loans.

Asset as something that is owned. Chattel as something that is owned that can be put forward as Collateral? That kind of thing. Asset is something that is owned. Economic Resource is a separate and similar concept, which is something that is seen as being of value. That's a separate concept and is often what is meant when people use the word Asset in financial industry parlance. Asset itself is anything that is owned by a party. Specifically an Owner. An asset is where you own something that you consider to be of value, and is the opposite of a liability, which is something you hold with negative value. So there is a directional aspect to this. Also an asset can be both an asset and a liabiiity. So there is a need to link this into the directional nature of double entry book keeping. Things that are assets to one person and liabilities to another. These need work in Foundations / Accounting, and will draw upon the REA based work on transactions, where we have a little trick to add the directional nature of things as noted here. Asset in legacy FIBO should be anything which is owned. See e.g. gold nugget example. There is the thing in itself (the rock made of gold) and the thing in a role which is the nugget playing the role of being owned by. Larry - So Nugget as an Asset is a kind of Asset, whose scope is that it is a Nugget. Now, how to make this as simple as possible and have simple labels. This may be a matter of representing relationships between the simple things in and of themselves. However some lending context require structures defining things like lenders, borrowers, assets and so on. From the combination of a hasLender and hasBorrower relation we can define the direct relationship where A lends to B. Now there are things we might want to say about that relationship. For instance if you want to explicitly model things being in roles (including parties playing roles, rocks playing roles and so on). So the PartyInRole which is PartyInLenderRole has instances like BoA as Lender to Jane. hasThing is in this model, is hasIdentity in FIBO. Can use this to infer relationships like hasOlender. Given roles for party as lender and party as borrower, we can infer across these, to infer that BoA loans to Jane. So then you can question the triple store to find out who the BoA is lending to (exposures). We don't always need to model the actual role. Except where there are specific properties that need to be stood up for those ones specifically.

MU hypothesis is we might never need the thing in role concepts. So then he would not want to represent Asset as a thing in a role. Lynn practical example for a mortgage there are owned properties that a borrower has that are in the application, whereby only one of the properties listed is the one that is the subject of that loan transaction. So then that piece of property has the specific role. You could simply have a relationship called subject role and point to that. What if there is more than one property? So if the subject property has more than one unit. As a conceptual ontology we need to stand up all of the conceptual nuances in order to figure out what would go in an operational otology for a given application. For example as soon as you have facts about a thing in a role that are specific to that relationship, e.g. date when a house became collateral or a given loan. The question is not what these things mean, but which ones you stand up in the ontology. So Asset is a sub class of thingInRole. The instance of an Asset is an instance of a situation whereby the owner (Larry) owns the thing (the gold nugget). Not an instance of gold nugget itself.

Lynn: Let's go through the ontology concepts next time, along with the definitions. Some o the definitions may lead us to readjust some of the concepts. Is that a plan? Yes. next steps: meetings now combined, from being every other week per kind of call, to a weekly meeting. So please expect to see those on the calendar. Next week? MU and MB are away at conferences, may or may not be able to attend.

The Ask! See spreadsheet of definitions, notes about relationships MISMO, PDF of the diagrams we have seen today. Please review those and be prepared to come back with comments next week on those.

Q: Are there any definitions we can review prior to the meeting? Yes, there are on the wiki. Lynn will also circulate these by email for ease of finding. Paul Kuykendall, et.al. (ARGO) - What is the status on OMG's efforts to get the contenttype negotiation fixed for OWL import negotiation? See https://wiki.edmcouncil.org/display/LOAN/FCTLOAN

Lynn will also circulate the link. The diagrams are large so best to use the wiki for those.

Action items

Michael Add a JIRA issue to tease out some of these concepts and revisit what's in the upper ontology and what needs to be tightened up there or in Loans.
Error rendering macro 'jira' : Unable to locate Jira server for this macro. It may be due to Application Link configuration.