Table of Contents

Date

22 Feb 2018

Actions items

Add new action items here.

Agenda

Meeting notes

AW: Nilesh, thank you for joining the call. You'll be replacing Afsheen Afshar as JPMC's representative on the working group, is that right?

NB: Yes, that's right. Hello everyone.

JS: Hello and welcome. Ok, so since the last meeting, we've approved the Country and Security Objects. I'm especially happy about the Security object. You can already send Security objects to Symphony via the API and they’ll show up as cashtags. There's still work to be done, but that’s good news for that object. Country and Currency are very basic attributes but give us basic building blocks for more interesting structured objects like RFQs that we have in the working drafts.

Lawrence, do you have a quick update on the action item here, to get the LLC’s thoughts on whether the platform will display structured objects or intend to leave that to renderers?

LM: My suggestion would be to reach out to Vincent about it.

JS: Yep. I know he’s very busy, so I try to limit what I send his way, but I’ll give him a shout. All: are there any particular objects—we’ve talked about RFQs and CDSs, as well as Contacts—is there anything your organizations are thinking about and would like to talk about getting down as a structured object?

HA: What generally is the next step – the next set of objects for the group to work on? The value’s going to be if we have consistency across the forum. Is there a way to suggest what we should work on next?

JS: The table is completely open. If you have ideas, you can send them to the mailing list, or to me, or add them to Confluence.

HA: I’m just trying to think of how we can decide together what the most useful objects would be.

JS: Absolutely. The process so far is that you can put whatever you want in Working Drafts, then after discussion and revision in the group, we move it to Proposed Standards, then if there’s a successful vote, it moves to Standards. So please feel free to take a look at the Working Drafts and see if you’re interested in anything there, or if there’s anything you want to work on that’s not there, we can add it.

We’ve seen that the process works best when there’s two parties on the call interested in transacting in a particular type of object.

HA: Makes sense.

JS: This segues nicely into the next topic, which is the future of the group. The Foundation’s mission will expand to encompass technologies other than Symphony, and this group will be subsumed within a program. That might be the Symphony program, if we'll remain focused only on passing objects within Symphony, but could also become part of a more general interoperability program – either one that's already been proposed or a new one. As for how the group itself is structured, we’ve seen that you get more participation and a better standard if the people participating are fluent in the topic. So if we’re going to work on RFQs, we form a subgroup of participants who are interested in and know that subject matter.

So I don’t know how everybody feels about that or if that’s a supported way of working.

AW: Absolutely, that sort of process isn’t prescribed by the Foundation.

JS: Any thoughts about whether this makes sense as something existing solely within the Symphony program or if it should be its own program or a cross-technology working group?

LM: I mostly want to hear from the group on this. I think you’re asking the right questions, including what governance you want to sit under and what you want the scope to be. What interoperability program were you thinking of?

JS: Well I know that there is the FDC3 proposal, but we've also talked about a more general interop program.

AW: Nilesh, Hammad, Peter: do you see the proposed output of this group being useful beyond Symphony.

NB: Definitely.

PS: I feel the same way. I raised the question before about having strong schemas for these. We’re looking at using these to generate OO representations of these in other languages and other applications, and maybe as a stroge format as well.

Hammad: Yeah, from the Bank’s side, the highest values are RFQs, exchange of trade information, so that’s definitely important for us. We see using Symphony as the transport layer.

AW: Hammad, Nilesh, Peter, would you be willing to form a RFQ?

Hammad: Yes.

Nilesh: Yes.

Peter: I’m not the right person but I can chase them down.

AW: Great.

JS: Sounds like a resounding yes that this should be a cross-technology group. Aaron, you and I we should talk more about the new structure and how to fit this in.

Ok, so in preparation for the next meeting, can I ask folks to send input on structured objects that will be of interest in the next six months so we can get them up on the Working Drafts board?

[Adjourned.]

Attendees