Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Nicholas Kolba

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Nicholas Kolba

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Attendees

NameOrganisation
Nicholas KolbaOpenfin
Espen OverbyeOpenfin
Johan SanderssonFactset
Jonathan TeperJP Morgan
Neil SlingerJP Morgan
Saori FotenosRefinitiv
Tim KoleckeCitadel
Rob UnderwoodFINOS
Maurizio PillituFINOS
Tosha EllisonFINOS

Goals

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
5minget startedgroupTosha Ellison to take notes.
5 minHousekeeping: Meeting Minutes Approval Process, Board Meeting Program Update, New Program Pages, Meetup, OSSF, Newsletter, FO AnnouncementRobMinutes for 9/7 and 9/21 will be reviewed and approved on 10/5. 


Rob Underwood provided an update on general housekeeping matters and a few updates including:

  • Agendas should be added to Confluence ahead of the meeting (available for the community to see).
  • Minutes from the previous meeting should be approved with a motion at the start of every meeting.
  • Board meeting updates are required by Tuesday. Reach out for help if needed.
  • FINOS is working on new program pages for the FINOS website including FDC3, which has been reviewed.
  • Inclusion of member participant logos on these pages has prompted discussion around the need for formal and objective criteria used to define a participant. This is in progress.
  • There is meetup on October 4th at Thomson Reuters focused on Financial Objects. We will also be sending a media advisory so please share this (via social, within and outside your firms) if you can.
  • OSSF is Nov 14th-15th in London and we hope you all will join.
  • The FINOS Newsletter will be coming out today. Please feel free to cascade.
10 minUse cases for Financial Objects groupgroupFOS is looking for advice on use cases from FDC3 to drive their direction

The Financial Objects WG has requested that FDC3 provide any use cases they think are relevant and will help drive the Financial Objects program and adoption. Discussion points include:

  • Importance of providing valuable and distinct use cases and not creating an excessive number as maintenance becomes a burden.
  • Nick noted that there were some great convos in London about relationship of context data in FDC3 and data structures with FO.
  • There are 8 (exact number to be re-confirmed) accepted use cases to share with and present to Financial Objects WG and any other WGs, where this is relevant.
  • Rob raised the point of the need for clarity around the intersection between some Programs, for example FDC3 and Financial Objects. Nick added that there have been some good discussions, for example, around FDC3 Intents and that it will be important to draw some lines around this. Nick took an action to send out an email about this for further discussion.
  • Rob told the group that there were some early and promising conversations around data standards, including symbology and that this will be relevant as well in the discussion on crossover.
  • Saori will provide a summary of the Use Cases to be sent to Financial Objects WG and other FDC3 WGs once they are cleaned up and will copy the PMC.
  • The ratified Use Cases will also be presented at an upcoming FDC3 General Meeting.


15 minrepository reqs for ratified standardsgroup

email from Rob on the topic:

I wanted to get a thread going around what I think are two similar requests we've received from the FDC3 and FO programs respectively:
  • FDC3: A "member accessible, repository for proposed standards" 
  • FO: A reference library (for objects)
I think these two requests likely have 80% overlap, perhaps more.
This is mind, I wanted to start to get some discussion going about what the key requirements are so we can start to look at what platforms we might use and how we'd implement this. Confluence and Github are immediate candidates but open to look at other platforms if that makes sense, including and especially platforms developed by and/or used by members and our wider contributor community. 
At some point we may want to engage with FDX/ODP on this but first wanted to talk high level requirements. And if/as we start to get these requirements identified, enumerated, and prioritized we may turn these into a confluence page for easier consumption and review, but for now let's use this thread.
Just as helpful, perhaps more so than requirements, would be examples of standards repositories and reference libraries you like (and why).
One requirement I think is that the standards repository / reference library be easy to navigate with minimal clicks to examples and definitions that are ready to be used and consumed. A key part of this would be to drive further use, adoption, and consumption of what's being produced by these two programs. I also think we'd want to make these repos / libraries readily available from
  
(that's a larger topic too, but wanted to call that out)
What else would folks like to see in a standards repository / reference library platform/tool? What ones out there do you like?
Discussion from the meeting:
  • Financial Objects has provided a first round of requirements for their needs, which may not be the same as those of FDC3, at least not in the near term.
  • For now the existing tools are okay, and different FDC3 WGs may have different requirements, e.g. Intents may benefit from something similar to FO requirements in the longer term.
  • Saori would like some additional time to review and will send some comments next week. Rob confirmed that is fine and that the motivation is to establish the requirements that will be helpful for the WGs as well as provide greater visibility to the wider community promoting FINOS progress.
  • The group agreed that it’s important to leverage existing tools rather than reinvent the wheel but also identified that Confluence may not be ideal, particularly in providing visibility to the wider community. Johan pointed out that FIX is using GitHub and Nick added that many of our groups are also currently using GitHub, with a challenge being that some participants can’t interact with GitHub. Mao noted that ODP is actively working to tackle these challenges.
  • There was discussion on the specific GitHub use within WGs, for example specs written in markdown, typescript definition projects and issues and pull requests to evolve the specifications.  Less use of Wiki features to date, possibly in other groups. Nick also noted that they haven’t been using the FINOS GitHub rather one that they had been using before. This is something to consider going forward as the standards get ratified where they should be published. Nick to provide some thoughts on this.
  • It’s also valuable to receive specific examples of things that people like and don’t like in the market.
  • The group will consider requirements for the longer term but in near term what they currently have is suitable.
15 minsecuritygroup

The question of security within interop was raised in the AppD WG last week.  This is an important topic for FDC3.  We should decide where it should live and what the positioning should be around it.

Early on in FDC3 many of the original ideas were linked to security but this has recently been on the back burner in favour of promoting adoption and interoperability.

It’s critical that as FDC3 scales there is a guarantee of identity as you have interoperability between applications/systems so this should now be a greater focus area.

This topic will be added to the agenda for the next meeting for a more detailed and informed discussion.

15 minAOBgroup
  • Nick and Mao will adjust the meeting invite (and point the google calendar to the new invite) so that FDC3 PMC will be the host of this meeting going forward (and can then record).
  • Saori reiterated that Use Cases do now have their initial set of accepted Use Cases and asked the group about the best way to present this information across FDC3 General, FDC3 Working Groups and other Programs. Espen proposed that the WGs do an initial review of the accepted Use Cases and then the Use Cases WG could present on those of specific interest. For the FDC3 General, there should be a high level presentation of each Use Case.
  • Nick highlighted that the Working Groups should be focusing on producing baseline, ratified standards and getting those out for the community to start using, particularly since we now have the ratification process agreed. The PMC should be helping to guide that and move the groups forward where there may be disagreement.

Action items