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

Financial (FIBO) proposals for core vocabulary #965

Merged
merged 17 commits into from Apr 20, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@Dataliberate
Contributor

Dataliberate commented Jan 19, 2016

This Pull Request constitutes a small proposal for enhancements to the core of Schema.org from the Financial Industry Business Ontology Community Group.

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, Richard Wallis and Martin Hepp.

The proposal consists of the following elements in the schema.rdfa file and some examples in sdo-fibo-examples.txt.

  • New Types: MonetaryAmount, FinancialProduct, BankAccount, DepositAccount, LoanOrCredit, InvestmentOrDeposit, CurrencyConversionService.
  • New Properties: annualPercentageRate, feesAndCommissionsSpecification, interestRate, leiCode, loanTerm, maxAmount, minAmount, requiredCollateral.
  • Updated Type: CreditCard
  • Updated Properties: amount, acceptedPaymentMethod, currency.

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

The proposal contains Types and Properties that will generally enhance capability in describing things of a financial nature but without introducing too much financial industry specific detail. We also took the opportunity to extend the domain of several properties such as logo, brand, and isRelatedTo to help the description of Services as well as Products. The future intension is to explore more detailed proposals that would form a hosted extension that builds upon these generally useful ones.

We look forward to comments, suggestions and questions that will help these enhancements become part of the vocabulary.

Richard Wallis.

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Jan 20, 2016

Contributor

Thanks for this. Is there a corresponding issue describing the needs that this implementation addresses? If not could you file something? It is best not to have dangling solutions filed solely as pull requests...

Contributor

danbri commented Jan 20, 2016

Thanks for this. Is there a corresponding issue describing the needs that this implementation addresses? If not could you file something? It is best not to have dangling solutions filed solely as pull requests...

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Jan 20, 2016

Contributor

I created a respective issue to manage this work, see #969

Contributor

mfhepp commented Jan 20, 2016

I created a respective issue to manage this work, see #969

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Feb 18, 2016

Contributor

Not a full review, but from a first pass: re "LoanOrCredit, InvestmentOrDeposit" ... can you try to come up with a name that doesn't include "Or" in it?

Contributor

danbri commented Feb 18, 2016

Not a full review, but from a first pass: re "LoanOrCredit, InvestmentOrDeposit" ... can you try to come up with a name that doesn't include "Or" in it?

@mfhepp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mfhepp

mfhepp Feb 18, 2016

Contributor

I think the current names are better than using a single super-term. We have to make sure people from the industry find the proper concepts. LoanOrCredit are two common words for such financial products where you get temporary access to an amount of money. We could, if absolutely needed, condense it to "Loan" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan).

InvestmentOrDeposit was chosen as an intuitive super-term for all financial products in which the client gives money for a future return. IMO, investment is more natural if the revenues are in the focus, while deposit is more common when the safe repayment of the money is the primary goal. If I deposit money, I want to get it back. If I make an investment, I am mainly looking for earnings from giving away the money.

Contributor

mfhepp commented Feb 18, 2016

I think the current names are better than using a single super-term. We have to make sure people from the industry find the proper concepts. LoanOrCredit are two common words for such financial products where you get temporary access to an amount of money. We could, if absolutely needed, condense it to "Loan" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan).

InvestmentOrDeposit was chosen as an intuitive super-term for all financial products in which the client gives money for a future return. IMO, investment is more natural if the revenues are in the focus, while deposit is more common when the safe repayment of the money is the primary goal. If I deposit money, I want to get it back. If I make an investment, I am mainly looking for earnings from giving away the money.

@Dataliberate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Dataliberate

Dataliberate Feb 19, 2016

Contributor

I support Martin in his description and analysis.

The two super-terms were chosen to support the common properties across
current and future individual financial product types. These naturally
separate into the two product areas he describes for temporary access to
an amount of money
and for giving money for future return.

Although logically two classes of products, the financial industry further
subdivide them into loans/credit and investment/deposit products which are
the names they would use when looking for appropriate terms. If in the
real world, actual products cleanly dropped into those 4 categories we may
have had the option to go for four super-types instead of two. However it
is clear that some products exhibit the attributes of investments and deposits for example.

If we were looking at individual types I would share your discomfort at the
proposed naming. As these are proposed as super-types for more specific
individual subtypes I believe they are named appropriately.

~Richard.

On 18 February 2016 at 21:24, Martin Hepp notifications@github.com wrote:

I think the current names are better than using a single super-term. We
have to make sure people from the industry find the proper concepts.
LoanOrCredit are two common words for such financial products where you get
temporary access to an amount of money. We could, if absolutely needed,
condense it to "Loan" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan).

InvestmentOrDeposit was chosen as an intuitive super-term for all
financial products in which the client gives money for a future return.
IMO, investment is more natural if the revenues are in the focus, while
deposit is more common when the safe repayment of the money is the primary
goal. If I deposit money, I want to get it back. If I make an investment, I
am mainly looking for earnings from giving away the money.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#965 (comment).

Contributor

Dataliberate commented Feb 19, 2016

I support Martin in his description and analysis.

The two super-terms were chosen to support the common properties across
current and future individual financial product types. These naturally
separate into the two product areas he describes for temporary access to
an amount of money
and for giving money for future return.

Although logically two classes of products, the financial industry further
subdivide them into loans/credit and investment/deposit products which are
the names they would use when looking for appropriate terms. If in the
real world, actual products cleanly dropped into those 4 categories we may
have had the option to go for four super-types instead of two. However it
is clear that some products exhibit the attributes of investments and deposits for example.

If we were looking at individual types I would share your discomfort at the
proposed naming. As these are proposed as super-types for more specific
individual subtypes I believe they are named appropriately.

~Richard.

On 18 February 2016 at 21:24, Martin Hepp notifications@github.com wrote:

I think the current names are better than using a single super-term. We
have to make sure people from the industry find the proper concepts.
LoanOrCredit are two common words for such financial products where you get
temporary access to an amount of money. We could, if absolutely needed,
condense it to "Loan" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan).

InvestmentOrDeposit was chosen as an intuitive super-term for all
financial products in which the client gives money for a future return.
IMO, investment is more natural if the revenues are in the focus, while
deposit is more common when the safe repayment of the money is the primary
goal. If I deposit money, I want to get it back. If I make an investment, I
am mainly looking for earnings from giving away the money.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#965 (comment).

Removed changes to audience, brand, logo, isRelatedTo, isSimilarTo
Now part of a seperate proposal referenced in issue (#1005)
@Dataliberate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Dataliberate

Dataliberate Mar 18, 2016

Contributor

Couple of examples of live commercial sites using the terms in this proposal. Both having JSON-LD inserts which I have extracted and attached for reference:

Contributor

Dataliberate commented Mar 18, 2016

Couple of examples of live commercial sites using the terms in this proposal. Both having JSON-LD inserts which I have extracted and attached for reference:

@Dataliberate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Dataliberate

Dataliberate Mar 21, 2016

Contributor

Git reports conflicts with this PR in its current state.
In terms of the proposed changes it is up to date.
However investigation shows that changes in a part of schema.rdfa are not fully understood by the git merge mechanism, and would need a little manual intervention.

Contributor

Dataliberate commented Mar 21, 2016

Git reports conflicts with this PR in its current state.
In terms of the proposed changes it is up to date.
However investigation shows that changes in a part of schema.rdfa are not fully understood by the git merge mechanism, and would need a little manual intervention.

@Dataliberate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Dataliberate

Dataliberate Mar 24, 2016

Contributor

Background to this proposal and links to examples are available on a wiki page in the FIBO W3C Wiki Here: https://www.w3.org/community/fibo/wiki/Main_Page

Contributor

Dataliberate commented Mar 24, 2016

Background to this proposal and links to examples are available on a wiki page in the FIBO W3C Wiki Here: https://www.w3.org/community/fibo/wiki/Main_Page

@danbri danbri merged commit e12db89 into schemaorg:sdo-deimos Apr 20, 2016

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