OntologyBasedStandards mini-series session-06 - Thu 2013-11-07    (4094)

Session Co-chairs: Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council) & Professor WilliamMcCarthy (Michigan State U) ... intro slides    (4095)

Topic: Ontology-based Financial Standards: Some Ongoing Work    (4096)

Panel / Briefings:    (40I0)

Archives:    (40I6)

Conference Call Details:    (40IF)

Attendees:    (40JD)

Abstract:    (40JR)

Ontology-based Financial Standards: Some Ongoing Work - intro slides    (40JS)

As with the recent session-04: The Case for a "Quantities and Units of Measure" Ontology Standard and session-05: "Ontology-based Standards in Geospatial Domains", this is a continuation of the OntologyBasedStandards mini-series that was started in late 2012 as a collaborative effort by ONTOLOG, IAOA, OASIS, OMG, various ISO working groups and the OOR Initiative. This session, is part of a program of 8 topics which are planned to be held over the remaining time in 2013, and partly in 2014.    (40JT)

At this session, we will be providing an introduction and overview into some current and developing financial industry standards, where ontologies and their applications are involved - using the FIBO conceptual framework to align across standards semantics; ISO 15944 transaction semantics; Regulatory ontology applications, etc. Briefings by the panel will be followed by Q & A and an open discussion of issues.    (40JU)

For more detail on the mini-series please also refer to details on the OntologyBasedStandards mini-series homepage.    (40JV)

Briefings:    (40JW)

Agenda:    (40K7)

OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Panel Session-06    (40K8)

Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call    (40K9)

Proceedings:    (40KE)

Please refer to the above    (40KF)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (40KG)

 see raw transcript here.    (40KH)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (40KI)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (40KJ)
	------
	Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20131107
	2013-11-07 GMT-08:00 [PST]
	------    (40OO)
	[9:18] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (40OP)
	 = OntologyBasedStandards mini-series session-06 - Thu 2013-11-07 =    (40OQ)
	Session Co-chairs: Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council) & Professor WilliamMcCarthy (Michigan State U)    (40OR)
	Topic: Ontology-based Financial Standards: Some Ongoing Work    (40OS)
	Panel / Briefings:    (40OT)
	* Professor BillMcCarthy (Michigan State U) - "ISO 15944-4 (2nd edition) and the REA accounting ontology"    (40OU)
	* Mr. DaveMcComb (Semantic Arts) - "Taming Complexity in the Financial Services Industry"    (40OV)
	* Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council) - "FIBO and Shared Semantics"    (40OW)
	* Dr. ElieAbiLahoud (University College Cork, Ireland) - "On The Road to Regulatory Ontologies: 
	  Expressing Regulations in Structured Natural Language - use of SBVR to create regulatory ontologies"    (40OX)
	* Mr. JohnHall (Model Systems, UK) - "Interpreting Regulation: some snippets from a methodology"    (40OY)
	Logistics:    (40OZ)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName    (40P0)
	* Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (40P1)
	* Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_31#nid3ZTO
	** you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online 
	   (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.)
	** if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or 
	   VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 
	   ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
	** Can't find Skype Dial pad?
	*** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
	*** for Linux Skype users: please stay with (or downgrade to) Skype version 2.x for now (as a Dial pad seems to be missing on Linux-based Skype v4.x for skype-calls.)    (40P2)
	Please refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_07    (40P3)
	Attendees: AdamWyner, AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, BartGajderowicz, BillMcCarthy, BobbinTeegarden, 
	DaveMcComb, DavidBooth, DennisWisnosky, DonaldChapin, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, ElisaKendall, 
	FrancescaQuattri, FrankOlken, GaryBergCross, GenZou, IsabellaDistinto, JesperKiehn, JoanneLuciano, 
	JohnMcClure, JohnHall, LamarHenderson, MartinGladwell, MaxGillmore, MichaelGruninger, 
	MichaelUschold, MikeBennett, PaulFodor, PeterYim, RichardBeatch, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, 
	TaraAthan, ToddSchneider,    (40P4)
	 == proceedings ==    (40P5)
	[9:18] anonymous morphed into IsabellaDistinto    (40P6)
	[9:27] anonymous morphed into DaveMcComb    (40P7)
	[9:27] anonymous morphed into RichardBeatch    (40P8)
	[9:27] anonymous1 morphed into MartinGladwell    (40P9)
	[9:29] anonymous morphed into BartGajderowicz    (40PA)
	[9:31] anonymous morphed into JohnHall    (40PB)
	[9:32] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri    (40PC)
	[9:32] anonymous1 morphed into ElieAbiLahoud    (40PD)
	[9:33] FrancescaQuattri: Hi Peter, It's me ... [thanks. =ppy]    (40PE)
	[9:34] anonymous morphed into DavidBooth    (40PF)
	[9:34] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelUschold    (40PG)
	[9:34] anonymous morphed into JesperKiehn    (40PH)
	[9:35] JoanneLuciano: Hi Everyone!    (40PI)
	[9:35] anonymous1 morphed into MaxGillmore    (40PJ)
	[9:35] MikeBennett: sorry I changed windows in skype and can't find the dial pad again    (40PK)
	[9:36] ElieAbiLahoud: in the menu under Call    (40PL)
	[9:36] MikeBennett: Yes, once you go to another chat window the main skype window no longer shows 
	the call. Found it in the end.    (40PM)
	[9:36] anonymous morphed into DonaldChapin    (40PN)
	[9:36] FrankOlken: FrankOlken is on the teleconference and chat room.    (40PO)
	[9:38] JoanneLuciano: the vnc is asking for a password VNC authication    (40PP)
	[9:38] MikeBennett: ontolog    (40PQ)
	[9:38] JoanneLuciano: thanks Mike!    (40PR)
	[9:39] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero    (40PS)
	[9:39] anonymous1 morphed into JohnMcClure    (40PT)
	[9:49] jkiehn morphed into JesperKiehn    (40PU)
	[9:39] PeterYim: == MikeBennett and BillMcCarthy starts the session - see slides at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_07#nid40I9    (40PV)
	[9:40] List of members: AdamWyner, AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, BartGajderowicz, BillMcCarthy, 
	DaveMcComb, DavidBooth, DonaldChapin, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, FrancescaQuattri, FrankOlken, GenZou, 
	IsabellaDistinto, JesperKiehn, JoanneLuciano, JohnMcClure, JohnHall, MartinGladwell, MaxGillmore, 
	MichaelUschold, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, PeterYim, RichardBeatch, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, 
	TaraAthan, ToddSchneider, vnc2    (40PW)
	[9:51] ToddSchneider: We should avoid using the term 'meaning', it's misleading in the context of 
	the use of explicit semantics in information systems. 'Interpretation' is the more correct (and 
	descriptive) term.    (40PX)
	[9:54] AlexShkotin: @Todd, 'meaning' is logical term, 'interpretation' - maths. We need both:-)    (40PY)
	[9:56] MikeBennett: Hmmmm...    (40PZ)
	[9:56] ToddSchneider: Alex, humans may make sense of 'meaning', computers interpret.    (40Q0)
	[9:58] AlexShkotin: @Todd, and we have 'definition' in common;-)    (40Q1)
	[9:56] PeterYim: == BillMcCarthy presenting ...    (40Q2)
	[10:01] JoanneLuciano: [ re. BillMcCarthy's slide#4 ] not clear what the different color in the 
	lines (and different types of lines) mean    (40Q3)
	[10:02] MikeBennett: @Joanne, Black = independent view; red = view as seen from within the firm and 
	reported in the accounts.    (40Q4)
	[10:08] MichaelUschold: [ re. BillMcCarthy slide#8 ] Does this mean Public Administration agents are 
	not Organizations? What definition of Organization excludes a Public Administration?    (40Q5)
	[10:10] MikeBennett: There's potential there for a more comprehensive ontology of organizations, 
	persons, legal persons, persons defined by their function (such as public admin; business etc.) and 
	so on, I think.    (40Q6)
	[10:13] JoanneLuciano: feedback to presenter: arrows on dashed lines in slides 13 and 14 would help 
	the slide convey the static slide    (40Q7)
	[10:11] RichardBeatch: Mike, leaving granularity aside for now, are the categories here consistent 
	with FIBO? Do they need to be?    (40Q8)
	[10:15] MikeBennett: @Richard At present, no. Firstly, we model "Party" as a relative thing (some 
	entity in some role); and secondly we distinguish between legal persons, organizations, and things 
	which are both. Hence (per my note above) Public Administration would not be in the top level set. 
	We have autonomous agent (corresponds to ISO Person), split into legal person, human being and 
	organization; and separately we have entities defined by their function (business, non profit, 
	special purpose vehicles etc.). But it's a close fit.    (40Q9)
	[10:22] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett re @Richard -- not consistent but a close fit? is that same_as 
	or different_from close but no cigar? :-) ... what are the implications of them not being 
	consistent? what doesn't work? what is gained with consistency? (interoperability?)    (40QA)
	[10:23] MikeBennett: @Joanne a good example of the kind of thing I want to try to unpack in my 
	presentation :)    (40QB)
	[10:23] MaxGillmore: I think that it would be perfectly possible to apply REA concepts to conversion 
	transactions (machine can be abstracted as an Agent)    (40QC)
	[10:26] FrancescaQuattri: really sorry to leave but I am knocked down by the late hour. Peter, do 
	you think we can reach a compromise with the world clock for the next sessions? Thanks to All 
	Presenters for the slides.    (40QD)
	[10:49] PeterYim: @FrancescaQuattri, ... the regular Ontolog event timing is almost an institution 
	(some community members actually carve out this time slot in their busy schedules to participate); 
	that said, the community collectively, makes the call ... let's discuss this offline ... noting 
	though, that "asynchronous" participation is already supported, in a significant way.    (40QE)
	[10:28] PeterYim: == DaveMcComb presenting ...    (40QF)
	[10:30] JoanneLuciano: [ re. DaveMcComb's slide#5 ] @Dave - laughing at his joke - make you an offer 
	you can't understand    (40QG)
	[10:30] MichaelUschold: Yeah, no laugh track, just is not the same :-)    (40QH)
	[10:38] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero    (40QI)
	[10:38] MikeBennett: Hi Simon, you got a good mention on the previous presentation.    (40QJ)
	[10:40] SimonSpero: @mike- yeah- tablet browser dropped me from chat, but Skype lives    (40QK)
	[10:40] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall    (40QL)
	[10:41] SimonSpero: Gist (on the internet) is tied in to github :-)    (40QM)
	[10:42] SimonSpero: ( https://gist.github.com )    (40QN)
	[10:41] MichaelUschold: FYI: The core of the REA model has a very natural and fairly direct mapping 
	to gist.    (40QO)
	[10:42] JoanneLuciano: +1 on reducing the complexity -- I like the way gist looks/sounds    (40QP)
	[10:45] BobbinTeegarden: Man as the anti-entropic force in the universe -- Dave's GIST is a great 
	example of just that.    (40QQ)
	[10:43] MikeBennett: Things should be as simple as possible and no simpler. Hence the importance of 
	high level, atomic concepts I think.    (40QR)
	[10:47] AmandaVizedom: I agree, with the caveat that maximum simplicity sometimes means using 
	high-level atomic concepts and sometimes means using more specific ones. The Einstein quote 
	(@MikeBennett [10:43]) has a corresponding principle regarding generality: Concepts and relations 
	should be asserted as generally as possible (at the most general level at which the relation you 
	want to assert is true), and no more generally.    (40QS)
	[10:49] SimonSpero: An employee, a customer and a pilot walk in to a bar    (40QT)
	[10:50] JoanneLuciano: @Amanda - yes, to me, goes without saying, but at the same time, it's good to 
	have (re)stated so we know we agree. occam's razor    (40QU)
	[10:50] AmandaVizedom: @DaveMcComb: Nice articulation of where the complexity comes from and how it 
	is amenable to reduction.    (40QV)
	[10:55] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne: I mention it because I don't think it goes without saying -- I do 
	think that many here understand it, but in practice, people model both too specifically (which Dave 
	was mostly addressing) and too generally (choosing a high-level model that encumbers future 
	extensions and models with expectations that may not fit.) I think that Dave's emphasis on the 
	lightweight nature of the high-level notions probably is addressed to this, but as it wasn't 
	explicit, I thought it worth noting.    (40QW)
	[10:58] JoanneLuciano: @AmandaVizedom, Nice articulation of Dave's nice articulation summarizing the 
	lessons learned from merging data in business applications and that it's useful to start with 
	understanding from SME and getting the gist. @ Amanda -- you're right. I was making an assumption in 
	the context of the call. Glad that you made it explicit.    (40QX)
	[10:58] AmandaVizedom: Perhaps @DaveMcComb or @MichaelUschold can tell us if I'm right about that 
	aspect of gist.    (40QY)
	[11:05] MichaelUschold: TO Amanda: which aspect of gist?    (40QZ)
	[11:10] MichaelUschold: We have a gist introduction white paper that describes the design rationale 
	of gist; if you cannot find it online, ping me.    (40R0)
	[11:17] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelUschold - Thanks, I'll check it out.    (40R1)
	[11:10] MichaelUschold: A key thing about this is that it is small enough to get your head around 
	and actually start using, but specific enough to have a starting place for modelling almost anything 
	that arises in a typical enterprise. Also specific enough in terms of axioms, to do useful 
	consistency checking to catch errors.    (40R2)
	[10:45] PeterYim: == MikeBennett presenting ...    (40R3)
	[10:45] anonymous morphed into JohnHall    (40R4)
	[10:59] JoanneLuciano: [ re. MikeBennett's slide#7 ] @Mike, "Relative thing" to me looks like "Role"    (40R5)
	[11:06] MichaelUschold: [ re. MikeBennett's slide#16 ] @Mike, Is a FIBO Aspect like a part or 
	component of something, or more like a property or attribute of something?    (40R6)
	[11:23] MikeBennett: @Michael not a component, more like an attribute or more accurately a side or 
	viewpoint. It's very underspecified at this point.    (40R7)
	[11:08] AmandaVizedom: @Michael: That the high-level aspects are lightweight, thus potentially 
	mitigating people's tendency to model too generally, as well as what Dave talked about explicitly 
	wrt mitigation of modeling too specifically,    (40R8)
	[11:09] ElisaKendall: @Joanne @Mike regarding relative thing looking like role -- for the most part 
	in the current ontology, we're restricting Mike's notion of relative things exactly to parties in a 
	role -- so, for example, with regards to parties in the context of a trust agreement, we have 
	trustor, trustee, beneficiary, all of which are parties to the trust agreement and have identity of 
	an independent party (beneficiaries in particular don't need to be legal persons, but can include minors, etc.).    (40R9)
	[11:12] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: contract has fairly specific meaning in law. A    (40RA)
	[11:13] SimonSpero: essential feature is that it is legally enforceable    (40RB)
	[11:14] MikeBennett: @Simon precisely. This is why it makes the whole model simpler if you don't 
	regard agreement and contract as the same kind of thing.    (40RC)
	[11:14] PeterYim: @BillMcCarthy, @MikeBennett - [ re. MikeBennett's slide#17 ] is there an adequate 
	mapping (or harmonization) between "transactions" concepts in REA and XBRL    (40RD)
	[11:15] MikeBennett: @Peter we had just started to look at the formal mapping into XBRL when we 
	temporarily suspended this series of calls to focus on other more immediate technical issues. We 
	intend to fiure out how to align these concepts with XBRL-GL and we are confident that the use of 
	the Aspect concept makes this possible.    (40RE)
	[11:17] PeterYim: @MikeBennett - would it be easier to have FIBO be grounded on a single Ontology 
	(say REA) and *then* map to other system/ontology(s)?    (40RF)
	[11:18] MikeBennett: @Peter that's the original intent of the FIBO Foundational ontology components. 
	REA concepts live in a specific context, though we were able to promote a number of those terms to a 
	broader context.    (40RG)
	[11:19] MikeBennett: What I hope to have shown is that there is potential to do this kind of thing 
	more broadly across semantic-based standards communities.    (40RH)
	[11:11] PeterYim: == ElieAbiLahoud presenting ...    (40RI)
	[11:15] AmandaVizedom: Aside: Something I like about all of these presentations: The modeling 
	approaches are explicitly *both* realistic *and* multi-perspectival. I think that this is probably 
	the only way to adequately model a complex domain with multiple actor-types, each with its own view 
	on (part of) the domain. It is worth calling out an applauding as a practical approach, however, 
	because it resists the methodological pressures from certain corners of the field to either reject 
	any talk of an underlying reality (and talk only of conceptualizations) or to reject the need for, 
	or validity of, multiple perspectives on a domain.    (40RJ)
	[11:23] SimonSpero: would like to come back to the sources - as warrants and authority: There's CFR 
	and USC, where CFR authority must be found in the USC (and scope of definitions can be a common 
	source of income for DC Circuit lawyers    (40RK)
	[11:26] PeterYim: == JohnHall presenting ...    (40RL)
	[11:31] MikeBennett: @Simon I think there's a lot of scope for taking concepts that we simply put in 
	the taxonomic hierarchy, and putting more legal and social constructs around them. Ultimately we 
	should be able to use Searle's ontology of social constructs to do justice to most of those.    (40RM)
	[11:32] SimonSpero: Mike: this is what I'm talking about    (40RN)
	[11:36] SimonSpero: [Ejusdem generis]    (40RO)
	[11:42] PeterYim: == Wrap up ...    (40RP)
	[11:43] JohnMcClure: [ tried making a verbal remark, but was on mute, and we ran out of time ] too bad    (40RQ)
	[11:44] JohnMcClure: REA model is missing public goods, externalities and open source    (40RR)
	[11:44] PeterYim: let's do our Q&A and open discussion asynchronously on the 
	[ontology-based-standards] mailing list - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-based-standards    (40RS)
	[11:44] PeterYim: Join us again, in two weeks (Thu 2013_11_21) for the RulesReasoningLP mini-series 
	session-03: Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic Programs, Classical Logic, and 
	Semantic Web - II - Co-chairs: LeoObrst & PascalHitzler    (40RT)
	[11:45] PeterYim: next in this series - 2013_12_12 - Thursday: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series 
	session-07: "How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language 
	standards" - co-champions: SimonSpero, KenBaclawski, RichardMartin, AdamWyner, MarkJohnson    (40RU)
	[11:46] JohnMcClure: thanks peter and presenters! great info    (40RV)
	[11:46] AlexShkotin: Great plans! Bye.    (40RW)
	[11:46] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:46am PST --    (40RX)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (40KK)

Additional Resources:    (40KQ)

For the record ...    (40KU)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (40KV)