...

Meeting notes

• JS: Welcome, it's ten minutes past the hour and only three persons attending. I was hoping to sort out any outstanding issues with the Country Object that has been going on via email and on the confluence pages - unfortunately the key participants are not here. I will send out some questions via email. While I have you on the phone - what's your opinion? Should we aim for only officially assigned codes or include exceptionally reserved and what about case sensitivity?
• BC: We currently do not have any datasets with country - but it make's sense to make it as clear as possible. So I would say only officially assigned and upper case.
• HS: I think so too, let's try to avoid any ambiguity
• JS: I also checked with various symbology folks internally - and all said that if a specification said "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2" they would expect GB for United Kingdom.
• JS: OK, I will attempt to update the pages and check with the foundation if we can kick off the vote again.
• HS: Go for it
• JS: There has not been any comments on the security object since last meetings discussion regarding a V1. I know I keep going on about having meta-data in the object and have tried to get someone from the LLC product team to come and present their vision, but for now I think the most important thing is to get the basic V1 approved and used in the community. We can always discuss a V2 later on if we want to include more data items.
• BC: Make sense. There's value in getting something out and improve on it later.
• JS. OK, same thing here then - i'll check with the foundation if we can kick off the vote.
• JS. The last thing on my agenda was a quick intro to FDC3 - have you guys heard about that?
• HS: Yes
• BC: No
• JS: OK, I wont go into details, but it's an "interop initiative" that OpenFin is behind. Basically coming up the a structure for how applications can communicate within their container. It of course includes sending identifiers and I think there is some overlap. I have spoken to Nick Kolba at OpenFin and he's actually in this WG but unfortunately have a conflict on Thursdays so can often not join in. Anyway, I was going to check interest and see if we could have a separate meeting where Nick could present. Would you be up for that?
• BC: Definitely, i think it's important that the community comes together and decides on one standard for financial objects.
• HS: Absolutely, and I would be interested to.
• JS: Sounds good. I'll see if we can get something on the calendar.
• JS: OK, i'll give you some time back today. Thanks for dialing in and look out for some email. Speak to you soon!

Attendees

...