Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nov 16 2021 - Regulation Innovation SIG off-schedule meeting: Reg Taxonomy project Meeting Minutes #37

Closed
3 of 28 tasks
agitana opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 9 comments
Labels
approved meeting minutes approved indexed meeting

Comments

@agitana
Copy link
Member

agitana commented Nov 1, 2021

Regulation Innovation SIG

Date

Nov 16th 2021 - 12pm EST / 5pm GMT

Meeting notices

  • FINOS Project leads are responsible for observing the FINOS guidelines for running project meetings. Project maintainers can find additional resources in the FINOS Maintainers Cheatsheet.

  • All participants in FINOS project meetings are subject to the LF Antitrust Policy, the FINOS Community Code of Conduct and all other FINOS policies.

  • FINOS meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of FINOS and the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Please contact legal@finos.org with any questions.

  • FINOS project meetings may be recorded for use solely by the FINOS team for administration purposes. In very limited instances, and with explicit approval, recordings may be made more widely available.

Agenda

  • Convene & roll call (5mins)
  • Display FINOS Antitrust Policy summary slide
  • Review Meeting Notices (see above)
  • 1. Review the overview diagram and consider the following questions:
    image
    • a. From a business logic perspective, does this make sense and is it a useful communication tool to convey the overall components of the project and how they fit together?
    • b. From a technical perspective, does the architecture make sense?
    • c. Regarding the technologies / standards called out (in the blue tags), are these the most appropriate tools for the job?
  • 2. Assuming general agreement with the overall approach proposed in (1), discuss the approach to developing each of the key components:
    • a. Graph database schema (RDFS)
      • i. Looking for input on the best open source graph database tools – leaning towards Apache Jena – does anyone have experience with this?
      • ii. Also looking for input on tools for creating and maintaining a large, scalable graph database, ideally with community input in creating and editing triples/quads
    • b. Business profile
      • i. Looking for input on how firms are currently codifying their policies, controls and other aspects of their business profile – we don’t want to reinvent the wheel here.
      • ii. Need to make a decision on the tooling and data standard for developing and maintaining the business profile – both Morphir and Legend have been suggested
    • c. Regulatory text parser: four key components to be built:
      - Data standard for structured regulatory content – probably using Akoma Ntoso as the starting point
      - Text extraction algo to parse regulatory texts and convert them into the standardised structured format
      - Named entity recognition algo to parse the structured format and tag concepts which exist in the taxonomies
      - Obligation extraction algo to parse the structured format and extract the regulatory obligations
    • d. Taxonomy
      • i. We have previously circulated a proposed methodology to build a taxonomy by parsing texts - https://kar.kent.ac.uk/75253/
      • ii. We are interested in input on open source tool to build and manage taxonomies (ideally with community collaboration in mind)
      • iii. Looking for input on existing open source reference taxonomies which can be integrated into the design
  • 3. Proof-of-concept: The first proof of concept will look at Liquidity Reporting. This is relevant for banks in both US and UK (and EU) as all three jurisdictions have implemented the LCR and NSFR as the core metrics for liquidity reporting. In addition, there are changing regulatory requirements (Fed 6G / 2052a in the US; PRA110/AMM in the UK) which serve to focus minds on the topic.
    We are looking for input on what would be of greatest value to firms from this proof-of-concept.
  • 4. AOB
  • AOB, Q&A & Adjourn (5mins)

Decisions Made

  • Decision 1
  • Decision 2
  • ...

Action Items

  • Action 1
  • Action 2
  • ...

WebEx info

@RichardWagener365
Copy link

RichardWagener365 commented Nov 16, 2021

Hi - Codethink

@stephengoldbaum
Copy link
Member

Stephen Goldbaum from Morgan Stanley

@WillRogerJones
Copy link

William Jones from Embecosm

@alvin-c-shih
Copy link

Alvin from Morgan Stanley.

@agitana
Copy link
Member Author

agitana commented Nov 16, 2021

Untracked attendees:

  • Taniem Choudhoury / Deutsche Bank

@NicDecouttere
Copy link

Nicolas from REGnosy

@jgavronsky
Copy link

Jane @ FINOS

@jnicholls82
Copy link

James Nicholls - Braithwate

@alexk2021
Copy link

Alex - FINRA

@agitana agitana closed this as completed Mar 1, 2022
@mcleo-d mcleo-d added the approved meeting minutes approved label Nov 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved meeting minutes approved indexed meeting
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants