EDM Council / Object Management Group Semantic Standards Workstream Definitions and Detailed Objectives May 04, 2011

Operating Assumptions 1.The initial goal is the development and adoption of the semantic standard for both financial instruments and legal entities 2.There are three initial streams of work associated with the development of the standard, in addition to ongoing content development: WS1: Content Disposition WS2: Technical Modeling Framework WS3: Shared Semantics 3.The other activities that need to be managed Standards Documentation Storage, Access, Distribution and Version Control Governance and Decision Making Processes Positioning and Communication 4.Formal project plans and clear definition of deliverables will be developed for each stream of work

Ongoing: Content Completion Goal: Completion of the content associated with the financial instrument and legal entity standards Success Criteria: Industry consensus on common terms, definitions and business relationships associated with all financial contracts Current Status: Work has been underway since 2007 in collaboration with industry subject matter experts. Covers all instrument classes, loans and business entities. Includes reference data, pricing and analytics Participant Profile: Business subject matter experts and analysts Semantics Repository:

WS1: Content Disposition Goal: Decisions about the components of the standard and the priority of release Success Criteria: Names and mnemonics for the complete set of standards to be delivered into the RFC process; Modularization of components within deliverable standards Current Status: Initial discussions on Wednesday meeting determined the basic principals to follow. Decisions to be made. This is a temporary work stream Participant Profile: Business subject matter experts and analysts

WS1: Content Disposition Decide on the scope of each individual standard Agreed principles: – As modular as possible – Modules within each deliverable – Standard useful within a given work context Strawman: – Business Entities with complete framework – Securities and Derivatives Reference Data Terms Timed / Dated terms (pricing, analytics) – Loans Think of a series of names!

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Goal: Update and formalize the underlying metamodel for the Semantics Repository to promote interoperability Success Criteria: When it is possible to import the entire Semantics Repository content into other tools Current Status: Developed in Enterprise Architect UML (version ) and viewable via the web as spreadsheets and diagrams Participant Profile: Modeling experts, UML experts, semantic technologists Future: Framework for aligning semantics, rules, terminology standards and notations

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Phases of work: – What’s needed to standardize the SR? Bringing the metamodel up to date Extending beyond ODM for business readability Things that we have been saving up to add to the SR Framework (non OWL ontology terms) – Beyond semantics: Rules Terminology Etc.?

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Metamodel disposition – ODM alignment – Metamodel constructs not in ODM Do we publish an additional metamodel? Can extensions be absorbed in ODM? Can some of them be done as OWL extensions? – Impact of OWL2

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Immediate Tasks – Review Metamodel against latest ODM – Review against ODM updates and OWL2 – Readability extensions Provision of drag and drop tool menus via “Profile” Commitment: Boxes and lines, no UML, no dialect Names in English No CamelCase, no repurposed punctuation marks Logic notation (restrictions on object properties) – Some of these can be done in reporting only?

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Non OWL Terms – Synonym – Archetype Further development within the SR (ontology) terms – OWL2 terms: N-ary relationships (via transitivity / property chaining) – What OWL does not do (but is ontology) Classification Facet Provenance (of meaning) Contextual markers? – Labels, names etc. (SKOS?)

WS2: Technical Modeling Framework Broader Framework – Integrate into a common framework: Ontology (what there is, facts about); Logic – Combinational logic (if-then) – Modal and deontic logic Terminology (words-oriented, as distinct from ontology) – First step is mapping to SBVR Align the two “Theories of meaning” on the static ontology terms – Integration with OMG AB proposals? Grounding of logic families; model theory

WS3: Shared Semantics Goal: Identification and evaluation of shared semantic models to avoid duplication of efforts and eliminate ambiguity Success Criteria: When all non-financial instrument/entity terms are traceable to a term owned by an industry/academic body and traceable to a relevant URI Current Status: Informal investigations during SME reviews Participant Profile: Domain experts with experience in semantics

WS3: Shared Semantics Overview – Disposition of Global Model – Identify sources of Standard Terms OMG (Time etc.) Industry Bodies (e.g. XBRL) Academic work (e.g. REA ontology) – Formalize approach How to deal with archetypes, lattice etc. – Common model “patterns” Open issues to resolve in how some key things are modeled at the top e.g wholes and parts; tenses. – What about Open Ontology Repository initiative?

WS3: Shared Semantics Commitment: terms should come from competent industry bodies – Existing material is placeholder – But it has our configuration of archetypes, grammar, lattice Common terms – Decision: split into layers: Non industry specific: Time, Units of Measure etc. Industry derived: Legal, Accounting etc. – Decision: Make each section an “Ontology” Formalize approach to ontology namespace alignment – See REA work in progress, draft paper – Upper ontology Lattice usage Common model patterns – Wholes and Parts (Mereology); Tenses/Time treatment etc. – Relationship facts Potential for a smaller, standard set of super-relationships These currently don’t use the OWL sub-types (transitive, functional etc.)

Other Activities to Manage Documentation and maintenance agreements Storage, access, distribution, navigation and version control (including migration to formal metadata repository) Governance and decision making processes associated with the standards Positioning, naming of standard (i.e. Financial Instrument Semantic Standard) and communication Industry adoption and alignment with regulatory reporting objectives Training and certification (once standard is adopted via the OMG mechanism)