Minutes of the W3C Rights Automation Spec Review 2021-06-02

Please find the minutes of today’s meeting at Market Data Rights Automation - Spec Review – 02 June 2021 (w3.org)<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html> and pasted below.

Summary of action items

  1.  Ben to find a way of versioning the document<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a01>
  2.  Ben to specify the mechanism for establishing contexts<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a02>
  3.  Caspar and Nigel to formulate questions about roles and relationships with Assets<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a03>
  4.  Caspar to write some documentation and recommendation around use of identifiers, what is the strategy we should use for all identified things, use of standard schemes and non standard schemes<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a04>
  5.  Laura to provide a couple of potentially problematic use cases so that Ben can see if we can still not need the idea of internal distribution<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a05>
  6.  Jo to arrange another meeting for 16th June, 1600Z<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#a06>

Market Data Rights Automation - Spec Review
02 June 2021
Attendees
Present
ali, ben, caspar, jo, laura, markb, marko, nigel
Regrets
-
Chair
jo
Scribe
jo
Contents

  1.  Admin<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t01>
  2.  Review<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t02>
  3.  Follow up<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t03>
  4.  AOB<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#t04>
  5.  Summary of action items<https://www.w3.org/2021/06/02-md-odrl-profile-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

Meeting minutes

This was an editors meeting called to review the document in-depth.

Admin

jo: noting this is an intervening meeting, so no customary business

Review

https://w3c.github.io/market-data-odrl-profile/md-odrl-profile.html


Jo: Need a numbering scheme, suggest Ben comes up with one.

Action: Ben to find a way of versioning the document

Ben: We have removed Resources as it added complexity without a purpose. We have now only Sources and Assets.

Ben: describe Exchanges, Venues. Recommend MIC codes.
… Asset Class: we recommend that people use CFI codes, ISO 10962 to define the asset classes.

jo: how do people indicate which scheme they are using?

caspar: need prefix to indicate which scheme is in use

ben: Compound ID - contains the context and the specific ID
… could say use URN scheme

jo: but urn schemes don't universally exist
… and there is a challenge in identifying the contexts

nigel: how to identify the universal context
… how do you indicate that you are using a private =context for your identifiers

(discussion about how to establish the context)

Nigel: establish context with well know IDs if not well-known it's private

jo: yes, those could be URIs which we can set up in the standard for well-known ones

Action: Ben to specify the mechanism for establishing contexts

Ben: on to counts

(discussion about IDs)

MarkB: distinguish AccessID and UserID so we can count people vs machines

Ben: need to capture whether its a user or a machine

Ben: let's see how exchanges respond ref AccessID being synonymous with UserID

Ben: quantities
… need to distinguish substantial from insubstantial

Ben: Parties
… concern that existing and prospective parties were not distinct from other types of party.
… these are subclasses of other parties, so the problem becomes moot

nigel: what is an external party?

ben: something that is not internal etc.

markb: in general we are talking entities but could be people

ben: asking could an existing client party also be a professional party?
… think not, always refers to people

nigel: client party is not a natural person

laura: agree

nigel: make explicit, then definitely disjoint

Ben: party roles
… have not changed the roles but have found that worth simplifying the roles
… e.g. originator defines rights, and if they are delivering too then they are in addition a provider

jo: would be good to see a picture of all the roiles joined up

ben: we will illustrate the flow describes in 2.1.7.2

caspar: roles make sense
… but each of the definitions associates a party with an asset
… they are a "is a" relationship, can't see how they tie to the asset

ben: not sure how to answer that directly

(illustrates options for how this could be done)

caspar: used to satisfy constraints

nigel: distinguish your own data and third party data flowing through the context

caspar: purely about propagation down the supply chain

ben: Caspar and Nigel can you formulate questions and then I can generate answers through the model

Action: Caspar and Nigel to formulate questions about roles and relationships with Assets

Ben: Activities
… we talked about Calculating Index - use of a facilitator means the exchange has to be paid
… show how to model that

(ben shows screen)

ben: would model as a permission that only a service facilitator can use
… OK

laura: yes

ben: calculating agent is a service facilitator, or is there a deeper distinction that needs to be made?

(agreement that this works)

caspar: do we need to take account of things like indemnity?

ben: don't think so. Hope not.

ben: Trading Platform changed from platform trading

laura: yes, it's the venue
… not a technology

markb: need to make it a verb

ben: wanted to keep short but: Offering a Trading Platform is what is intended. Will change

ben: Data Management

laura: people touch the data but don't know what it is

ben: need to add in the term "support" here somewhere

laura: some orginators think they are users, others don't

ben: moving on to control
… Restricted user Group and Closed user group defined here
… sometimes see reference to Open User Group
… but what does it mean?

laura: not sure what it means

ali: are we talking about users in a firm

ben: think we need a new property, system provider, is it the vendor?
… need to distinguish who is going to provide it

ben: example from Deutsche Boerse contract
… Web hosting ... discussing the example on screen

markb: would control provider be better than system provider?

ben: trying to minimise the number of terms
… system provider is given context by where it is
… coming back to Web hosting
… think it is just a type of distribution

laura: what is the context

ben: there are two things they pick out - web hosting and white labelling
… do we need those terms or can we build the context out of terms that exist

(discussion)

Nigel: white label implies hiding the original name

ben: end party does not have ability to store or process the data
… so that says that we can use existing terms

laura: very important, can we store x dataset in our cloud?
… vs web hosting

ben: how common are web hosting and white label? Are they central to licenses are peripheral

markb: very common in exchanges we deal with
… definitely not nothing

Ben: service seems to be important

nigel: needs to be modelled

markb: used less specifically in the industry

ben: specifically relates to derived data, need to say what service does this

jo: name as distribution service for clarity?

ben: external distribution service, name gets longer and longer

markb: remove "external"

ben: yes, we'll remove external, nothing changes

ben: discussion of refines

jo: uses the term Resource

ben: need to do a global correction

jo: context, earlier discussion, needs to be elaborated - standard contexts and non-standard contexts

ben: would like someone else to do

caspar: undo me from previous action on me

Action: Caspar to write some documentation and recommendation around use of identifiers, what is the strategy we should use for all identified things, use of standard schemes and non standard schemes

nigel: we said there would be some well-known contexts

ben: yes, we will talk to the providers of LEIs requesting them to provide a URN

ben: (discussion of actions, wanted to reduce the number of actions)

ben: think we can cover things though we have such a small list of actions

laura: distribute to external party?

ben: think internal distribution is not needed as a term
… explains why we don't need internal distribution

Action: Laura to provide a couple of potentially problematic use cases so that Ben can see if we can still not need the idea of internal distribution

ben: duties
… we have kept it small and tight
… might have to add one more
… have a legally binding agreement on something
… wondering if we are comfortable with having stronger agreement

(discussion about what this all means)

jo: noted that we have agreed to include "agree"

ben: noting that we have reached the end of section 4.

Follow up

jo: do we want another session

ben: let's do in 2 weeks and give it an hour

jo: starting at 1600Z, 1700UK, 1200US East

Action: Jo to arrange another meeting for 16th June, 1600Z

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.