Minutes of the W3C Rights Automation Community Group 2021-07-07

Please find the minutes of yesterday’s meeting here <https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html> and pasted below.

Summary of action items

  1.  Ben to draft versioning text<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a01>
  2.  Caspar to look into deprecation policy of ISO standards<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a02>
  3.  Ben to put the identifier prefixes from Caspar into the standard<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a03>
  4.  Caspar to verify that M49 codes with a URN<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a04>

Summary of resolutions

  1.  Accept minutes of last meeting<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#r01>

Market Data Rights Automation Teleconference
07 July 2021
[IRC log.]<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-irc>
Attendees
Present
belen, ben, caspar, jo, laura, markd, michelle, trisha
Regrets
markb, nigelp, renato
Chair
jo
Scribe
jo
Contents

  1.  Admin<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t01>
  2.  Report from FISD Webinar<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t02>
  3.  Versioning<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t03>
  4.  Identifiers<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t04>
  5.  GLEIF<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t05>
  6.  Feedback on Document<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t06>
  7.  AOB<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t07>
  8.  Summary of action items<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  9.  Summary of resolutions<https://www.w3.org/2021/07/07-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

Meeting minutes
Admin

jo: minutes of last meeting
… Ben - call a meeting to discuss FESE terms

ben: still to do

markd: came across investor.gov which has some terms
… also reaching out to FISD members

jo: actions on caspar - done - will come back to later

Resolution: Accept minutes of last meeting

Report from FISD Webinar

link to webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGiDOS92RdE&list=PLg5YwZo7PxhBf2-ObAYedoHCNa_nRKYpx


markd: all went well

ben: feedback was positive, 90 mins was the right amount of time
… people seemed to stay for the whole time
… level of discussion was good and candour of the panel was remarked upon
… would be good to have a glide path
… discussion on adoption was interesting
… had a discussion with a bank wondering if they wanted to be an innovator or if they were happy following
… can we avoid this?

markd: points raised about under-representation of exchanges was important
… call to action needs to be top of mind

Versioning

caspar: Nigel and I sent over high level recommendations and points for discussion
… ideally use semantic versioning ... also support in OWL for deprecating terms
… difficult to test for compatibility ... difficult to test for compatibility at the domain level
… in some cases action is backwards compatible ... but not in others, for example in a prohibition
… looking for prior art, found a couple of papers ... but they don't seem to be complete
… diff needs to done at semantic level not document level
… if version is 0 then doesn't matter about breaking changes

ben: let's say you have version 1.0.1 ...
… if someone is using 2.... then you have a problem
… if you have 1.0.2 then you can carry on
… problem lies in the number in the middle
… take the point on addition of prohibition or constraint
… is there a way of calling out if an unknown terms was found
… so that would be fail gracefully

caspar: like the idea of a workflow

jo: could we not say that we'll edit the document only according to rules that are predictable

caspar: most minor number - fixes etc.
… middle number is used for non-breaking incremental changes

ben: if we changed the definition of duty that would be catastrophic
… but if we add a term then we can localise the problem.

jo: change version number differently according to the nature of the addition, breaking and non-breaking additions

caspar: if you hit a term and you don't understand it, then you fail if the rule is to evaluate all the prohibitions

jo: implementation rules make perfect sense as long as we think it rmeains robust

ben: if this works we can maintain simple versioning system to help adoption

jo: anyone else we can reach out to?

caspar: no, academic work is detached

ben: I'll ask someone who is an ontology expert
… next step is to write it in to the standard
… will liaise with nigel and caspar to reflect their work

Action: Ben to draft versioning text

markd: differences between exchanges - can we accommodate the differences in derived data

ben: we are taking the lego block approach - we have some properties ...
… which in combination will hopefully explain the differences between exchanges
… but if they come up with new models we may need additional terms

Identifiers

caspar: sent a long email, crux is that URN NID is sufficient for every purpose. Some concern around versioning. e.g. currency codes are static LEIs grow over time
… looks like all roads lead to ISIN ... so if you will allow multiple different types of standards for IDs then there could be a problem
… seems like there is always a temporal component, whereby the id is checked as of the dat of the contract

jo: so there is a bi-temporal model at work here

ben: having a short-hand whereby the standard is at the date of the contract
… is a neat solution

caspar: with a perm url the problem doesn't arise
… unbounded sets will need to be a permid

ben: I can't believe ISO codes would reallocate, such a naff thing to do
… all the codes we are interested in would be ISO codes

Caspar: I'll check for what the deprecation policy is for any of the referenced standards

ben: good news is that we can referenced via URN

Action: Caspar to look into deprecation policy of ISO standards

ben: I'll put the prefixes into the standard

Action: Ben to put the identifier prefixes from Caspar into the standard

ben: M49 set is superset of ISO - do we lose anything if we use it

caspar: couple of weird quirks, like gb for uk

Action: Caspar to verify that M49 codes with a URN

GLEIF

ben: LEIs can be dereferenced, they are enforced by regulators, anyone in the market will have one
… GLEIF will create a URN, and are applying for that schema right now
… we connected them with W3C who hopefully will help
… so we can make the recommendation to use LEI and to use URN syntax to do so

Feedback on Document

ben: feedback is drying up, and attendance is decreasing, does this mean that people are happy enough ...
… I will write a new version, tidy a few things up
… so shall we move on to implementation and interoperability ...

laura: makes sense to me
… are there any parts of the standard that need more review, happy to help with that
… transition to monthly, good to know, other people then might be involved

(polling floor for views)

michelle: seems like a good point to move forward

mark: what are the targets we are trying to hit?
… cadence should fit wheat we are trying to achieve and when by

ben: good point, let's focus on what we mean by interoperability, and specify some projects

ben: if I see some areas that need further review I'll contact Laura/Michelle/Mark
… versioning and IDs need to go on
… I'll try to do that in the next fortnight

AOB

jo: hearing none, meeting closed






---
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Please refer to https://www.db.com/disclosures for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures and to http://www.db.com/unitedkingdom/content/privacy.htm for information about privacy.