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://
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