Table of Contents

Date

Jan 5, 2017

Attendees

Actions items from previous meetings

Agenda

Meeting notes

• Bruce: nothing for the agenda for today, but let's review action items:

  • Bruce: documentation of JIRA entity ML structure - the code is now open sourced, so I assume the entity ML definitions used in that code could be published on the wiki.  Should be in a position to do that shortly.  The source code is visible in the Foundation GitHub repositories - I had a quick look but couldn't easily find the definition.  I'll check with the team who wrote the code.

  • Matt Gardner isn't present, so no update there.

  • Johan: we haven't yet finalised the FactSet entity definitions, so it's not yet the right time to publish those definitions (we're working with the LLC to approve the way we're doing it), so I need to take that back and make sure they are publishable.  On the general aspect of publishing what we're doing, we have internal agreement that that's something we'll be able to do.

• AOB:

  • Bruce: Given the small turnout - should we suspend the meetings until there's something more to discuss?

    • Nick: fine for me.

    • Johan: I would throw out the suggestion to continue collaborating on the email list, given there's not that many people here.  If we can try to do some sort of thinking around a smaller financial object, not necessarily the full rendering capability, but just same form of in-between / small solution around the actual identifier.  Something larger than a basic cashtag - a smaller financial object that other applications can use as an identifier (containing CUSIPs, ISINs, etc.) - but without a custom renderer.  This is possibly the most key thing people are requiring / thinking about - how to use Symphony cross-pod / cross-asset-classes when they don't have the same data terminals available on the back end.

    • Bruce: the existing capability (delivered as part of the integrations) should be sufficient for this.  Everything is there in the platform to enable that, and if any two participants want to exchange messages on this, then that should be possible.  What we haven't had is agreement from multiple parties to do this.  There seems to be some competitive sensitivities around speaking about this in the open.

    • Peter: perhaps a "bag of identifiers" entity is a good place to start, since they're not competitively sensitive?

    • Bruce: there's an existing entity definition for this.

    • Johan: but there's no hover card functionality with that definition.

    • Bruce: so you're asking for some basic rendering support?

    • Johan: exactly.

    • Bruce: right, so we're back to PM not prioritising things customers aren't asking for, and we don't have any customers on this call today.

    • Johan: I had some brief summing up with Paul before Xmas, and he was on board with the idea of some form of collaboration on the mailing list around an identifier object, and if we get some positive involvement then he'd be interested.

    • Bruce: I think that's what we should do.  And via the mailing list everyone gets to see it, unlike this call.  So I think we'll suspend the bi-weekly meeting and move to the mailing list, and we can reinstate the meeting if anyone requests it.

• Meeting adjourned

Action items