On 2/22/2013 11:42 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
> The financial industry has lots of standards for messaging, and some
> at the level of common logical data models, but the requirements for
> integration within financial firms has led to an increasing realisation
> that what's really needed is common semantics... (01)
Common ontology can certainly be a big help for enabling two firms,
A and B, to interoperate. But independently developed systems that
use the same ontology are likely to have different *physical* formats
and different *human* conventions for the people who use and operate
the computer systems. (02)
If bank A buys bank B, the merged bank continues to run the software
and databases of bank A and B separately. Even when they say that
they merged the two databases, they are really running them as if
they were still separate. (03)
If and when they want to shut down the old programs, they persuade
(or force) customers from bank B to close the old accounts, open
new accounts in the formats of A, and transfer the funds from
the old accounts to the new accounts. (04)
John (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (06)
|