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

Move Fibo.schema.org v1.0 proposal in pending for review #1253

Open
RichardWallis opened this Issue Jul 21, 2016 · 14 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@RichardWallis
Contributor

RichardWallis commented Jul 21, 2016

Move proposal from Pull Request (#1163) for a FIBO financial extension into pending extension referencing this issue.

Text from PR:
This Pull Request constitutes a proposal for a FIBO extension to Schema.org from the Financial Industry Business Ontology Community Group.

This proposal builds upon the the new types and properties for the support of financial products and services introduced into Schema.org V3.0.

It introduces a first raft of new and modified Types and Properties to support in more detail the requirements for sharing financial products, services and organisations using Schema.org on the Web. This initial (v1.0) proposal has a focus on the area of loans, plus the addition of some more generally useful terms.

The proposal offered by the Group is based on the work of the Financial Industry Business Ontology project to extend the capabilities of Schema.org aligned with the Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO). This has been a team effort utilising the expert knowledge and know-how of members of the FIBO Content Team involved in creating the Financial Industry Business Ontology, working with others familiar with Schema.org including Mirek Sopek, and Richard Wallis.

More detail and links to the definitions in a test version of schema.org (http://fibo.sdo-fibo.appspot.com/) are available in the Group Wiki.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Sep 8, 2016

Contributor

Hi FIBO folk. Could you please give (or confirm, see below) a shortlist of the terms that you're proposing we allocate? Is it (from http://fibo.sdo-fibo.appspot.com/):

  • Types (6): BrokerageAccount, ExchangeRateSpecification, InvestmentFund, MoneyTransfer, MortgageLoan, RepaymentSpecification
  • Properties (25):, bankAccountType, beneficiaryBank, cashBack, contactlessPayment, currentExchangeRate, domiciled, downPayment, earlyPrepaymentPenalty, exchangeRate, exchangeRateSpread, floorLimit, gracePeriod, loanMortgageMandateAmount, loanType, minimumInflow, mobileApp, monthlyMinimumRepaymentAmount, numberOfPayments, overdraftLimit, paymentAmount, paymentFrequency, recourseLoan, renegotiable, repaymentForm, textChat
  • Already existing but adapted for this proposal: amount, currency, email

See Updated list below (RJW)

This is quite a collection, I'd like our steering group to look these over before we move ahead. Pinging @scor @rvguha @mfhepp @nicolastorzec @vholland @chaals @shankarnat @tmarshbing ...

Contributor

danbri commented Sep 8, 2016

Hi FIBO folk. Could you please give (or confirm, see below) a shortlist of the terms that you're proposing we allocate? Is it (from http://fibo.sdo-fibo.appspot.com/):

  • Types (6): BrokerageAccount, ExchangeRateSpecification, InvestmentFund, MoneyTransfer, MortgageLoan, RepaymentSpecification
  • Properties (25):, bankAccountType, beneficiaryBank, cashBack, contactlessPayment, currentExchangeRate, domiciled, downPayment, earlyPrepaymentPenalty, exchangeRate, exchangeRateSpread, floorLimit, gracePeriod, loanMortgageMandateAmount, loanType, minimumInflow, mobileApp, monthlyMinimumRepaymentAmount, numberOfPayments, overdraftLimit, paymentAmount, paymentFrequency, recourseLoan, renegotiable, repaymentForm, textChat
  • Already existing but adapted for this proposal: amount, currency, email

See Updated list below (RJW)

This is quite a collection, I'd like our steering group to look these over before we move ahead. Pinging @scor @rvguha @mfhepp @nicolastorzec @vholland @chaals @shankarnat @tmarshbing ...

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Sep 8, 2016

Contributor

That is not quite the state of this. For some reason sdo-fibo.appspot.com was serving up an old version.

The proposal for terms to be moved into pending is now visible as issue-1253 on pending.sdo-fibo.appspot.com

It includes:

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 8, 2016

That is not quite the state of this. For some reason sdo-fibo.appspot.com was serving up an old version.

The proposal for terms to be moved into pending is now visible as issue-1253 on pending.sdo-fibo.appspot.com

It includes:

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Sep 14, 2016

Contributor

@rvguha will take a look at this.

Contributor

danbri commented Sep 14, 2016

@rvguha will take a look at this.

@sopekmir

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sopekmir

sopekmir Sep 20, 2016

Contributor

Dan, All,
what is the chance for letting this extension to go to pending, or into its own extension, soon?
I have queries from people from banks when we could go ahead with this important extension.

Of course if there is still something to modify/improve - please let me/us know. We may engage more "brains" from our team working on the proposal, and make progress pretty fast.

Contributor

sopekmir commented Sep 20, 2016

Dan, All,
what is the chance for letting this extension to go to pending, or into its own extension, soon?
I have queries from people from banks when we could go ahead with this important extension.

Of course if there is still something to modify/improve - please let me/us know. We may engage more "brains" from our team working on the proposal, and make progress pretty fast.

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Sep 29, 2016

Contributor

@rvguha any thoughts on this?

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 29, 2016

@rvguha any thoughts on this?

@richardhundt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@richardhundt

richardhundt Jul 9, 2017

Hi all,

I can't figure out how MoneyTransfer can usefully express a transfer of money in that there's no way to specify the source and destination bank accounts. Since BankAccount is a FinancialProduct and not a Place, you can't put those into fromLocation and toLocation (inherited from TransferAction).

It seems like such an obvious thing to want to model, I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't figure out what it is. Any tips?

Thanks!

richardhundt commented Jul 9, 2017

Hi all,

I can't figure out how MoneyTransfer can usefully express a transfer of money in that there's no way to specify the source and destination bank accounts. Since BankAccount is a FinancialProduct and not a Place, you can't put those into fromLocation and toLocation (inherited from TransferAction).

It seems like such an obvious thing to want to model, I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't figure out what it is. Any tips?

Thanks!

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jul 9, 2017

Contributor

Yes, the supertype seems to be physical/literal, whereas the financially-oriented subtype is more symbolic/abstract/virtual in its notion of movement.

I have not yet seen a compelling usecase for this particular piece of vocabulary, @sopekmir @mfhepp @RichardWallis may be able to shed more light on what the FIBO community have in mind.

Contributor

danbri commented Jul 9, 2017

Yes, the supertype seems to be physical/literal, whereas the financially-oriented subtype is more symbolic/abstract/virtual in its notion of movement.

I have not yet seen a compelling usecase for this particular piece of vocabulary, @sopekmir @mfhepp @RichardWallis may be able to shed more light on what the FIBO community have in mind.

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Jul 9, 2017

Contributor

My memory of the design decisions is not fresh anymore, but I guess the whole point was being able to model financial service types and their terms and conditions - e.g. "one money transfer by wire costs 1 USD", not so much individual money transactions.

Contributor

mfhepp commented Jul 9, 2017

My memory of the design decisions is not fresh anymore, but I guess the whole point was being able to model financial service types and their terms and conditions - e.g. "one money transfer by wire costs 1 USD", not so much individual money transactions.

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Jul 9, 2017

Contributor

Yes my memory of it was similar - model the service (potential action), which you would want to share on the web, not individual transactions which you wouldn't want to share with the world.

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Jul 9, 2017

Yes my memory of it was similar - model the service (potential action), which you would want to share on the web, not individual transactions which you wouldn't want to share with the world.

@richardhundt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@richardhundt

richardhundt Jul 9, 2017

The thing is, there's this whole PSD2 directive hitting the EU early next year which is forcing banks to open up their APIs to third party providers. This seems to be a global "open banking revolution", mainly due to regulatory vacuum wrt. FinTechs who've been screen scraping until now. The alternative is ISO20022 messaging which really isn't very pretty, so I can see a real use case for more verbs in the schema describing actual transactions and payments.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration, and I can understand if this isn't in scope for your efforts.

EDIT: as an aside, the issue is more to do with TransferAction not taking into account abstract things like data, information, ownership or knowledge, all of which can be transferred between people and organisations.

richardhundt commented Jul 9, 2017

The thing is, there's this whole PSD2 directive hitting the EU early next year which is forcing banks to open up their APIs to third party providers. This seems to be a global "open banking revolution", mainly due to regulatory vacuum wrt. FinTechs who've been screen scraping until now. The alternative is ISO20022 messaging which really isn't very pretty, so I can see a real use case for more verbs in the schema describing actual transactions and payments.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration, and I can understand if this isn't in scope for your efforts.

EDIT: as an aside, the issue is more to do with TransferAction not taking into account abstract things like data, information, ownership or knowledge, all of which can be transferred between people and organisations.

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Jul 10, 2017

Hmm, this is a bit too flat still and only covers core Banking and Mortgage with a sprinkle of an Investment Account.
The general organization of this FIBO proposal seems primarily from a Product perspective and causes issues when you get into an Asset Management perspective (I.E. the FinancialProduct Providers...who have a need to say a lot of things about themselves, some legally required to say and report about, and not just their FinancialProducts alone.

For instance, if you wanted to say that your $1000 deposit into your BrokerageAccount that is provided by a BrokerageFirm which has assets under management = $25 Billion , we have no easy way to say that. We have to make long leaps to Service:provider.

  1. Suggest that we add missing "provider" to BrokerageAccount and others.

  2. We are lacking ways to easily say Financial Health and Asset Management things about any FinancialProduct Providers themselves. (probably need a few more Types and Properties)

Good first pass team !

thadguidry commented Jul 10, 2017

Hmm, this is a bit too flat still and only covers core Banking and Mortgage with a sprinkle of an Investment Account.
The general organization of this FIBO proposal seems primarily from a Product perspective and causes issues when you get into an Asset Management perspective (I.E. the FinancialProduct Providers...who have a need to say a lot of things about themselves, some legally required to say and report about, and not just their FinancialProducts alone.

For instance, if you wanted to say that your $1000 deposit into your BrokerageAccount that is provided by a BrokerageFirm which has assets under management = $25 Billion , we have no easy way to say that. We have to make long leaps to Service:provider.

  1. Suggest that we add missing "provider" to BrokerageAccount and others.

  2. We are lacking ways to easily say Financial Health and Asset Management things about any FinancialProduct Providers themselves. (probably need a few more Types and Properties)

Good first pass team !

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Aug 14, 2017

QUESTION: Does loanPaymentFrequency need to also expect a type of Duration and Text ? Like we did for http://schema.org/repeatFrequency ?

thadguidry commented Aug 14, 2017

QUESTION: Does loanPaymentFrequency need to also expect a type of Duration and Text ? Like we did for http://schema.org/repeatFrequency ?

@sdml

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sdml

sdml Dec 11, 2017

I agree,
loanPaymentFrequency should have Duration and Text in Range. In RepaymentSpecification example it is used as a text property.

Sorry for (a very) late reaction to the posts here.

sdml commented Dec 11, 2017

I agree,
loanPaymentFrequency should have Duration and Text in Range. In RepaymentSpecification example it is used as a text property.

Sorry for (a very) late reaction to the posts here.

@magico

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@magico

magico commented Dec 14, 2017

Agreed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment