DER-125 - Need to better integrate the concept of a UTI conforming to the ISO standard

[ElisaKendall]

Signed-off-by: Elisa Kendall ekendall@thematix.com

Description

Reconciled (deprecated) securities transaction identifier in favor of unique transaction identifer, adjusted semantics and definitions to better align with the ISO standard

Fixes: #1791

Checklist:

• [x] I'm familiar with the FIBO developer quide. My contribution meets all the requirements described there.
• [x] My contribution follows the principles of best practices for FIBO.
• [x] My changes have been reconciled with latest master and no merge conflicts remain.
• [x] This PR is related to exactly one issue. The issue is referenced by using a GitHub keyword such as "fixes", "closes", or "resolves".
• [x] Hygiene tests have been applied by a PR with "(WIP)" in title.
• [x] The issue has been tested locally using a reasoner (for ontology changes).

[rivettp]

The aspect of generating entity is covered in depth in section 3.3 of the following https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d158.pdf (though this is not the definitive work) and it's about the entity identifier embedded into the UTI itself - in other words entity B in my example. Hence having a separate property for the generating entity seems somewhat redundant, though I'm not against it. We should however add a note to explain what it's for.

[tahoeblue]

Pete,

I agree with the jursidictional dependency on when “a transaction is required to be reported”, but I still think that the “transaction” mentioned in this language is the same thing as “trade”, not the intermediate processing steps performed by market infrastructures to complete the transaction/trade. If nothing else, the need for every operational processor to generate a UTI for a subsequent interaction with another market infrastructure processor in the course of completing an exchanged-based trade would swamp the processing of trades with counterproductive complexity and volume of UTI creation without any need or requirement to report them.

On Jun 30, 2022, at 10:00 AM, Pete Rivett @.***> wrote:

@rivettp commented on this pull request.

In FBC/ProductsAndServices/FinancialProductsAndServices.rdf https://github.com/edmcouncil/fibo/pull/1792#discussion_r911259459:

@@ -985,15 +986,16 @@

- - + This document https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d158.pdf says that the level at which trades must be reported may vary by jurisdiction, and the UTI framework tries to accommodate that. I still think that a UTI is not always a TradeIdentifier so the subclassing over-commits. In the specific transactions where they are the same then a specific UTI could be multiply classified. And that could even be made a restriction for certain subclasses of Trade. "A UTI is needed when a transaction is required to be reported under the rules of a jurisdiction irrespective of whether another relevant jurisdiction (eg that of the other counterparty) also requires the transaction to be reported. Where more than one jurisdiction requires reporting of a particular transaction, then the same UTI should be used on any such reports. Where individual components of a package or strategy trade are reported separately, a different UTI should be used for each component."

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/edmcouncil/fibo/pull/1792#discussion_r911259459, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB72TFUM6UJZUVIPIXWQOVLVRXHEXANCNFSM52HQYSWA. You are receiving this because you commented.

[ElisaKendall]

The aspect of generating entity is covered in depth in section 3.3 of the following https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d158.pdf (though this is not the definitive work) and it's about the entity identifier embedded into the UTI itself - in other words entity B in my example. Hence having a separate property for the generating entity seems somewhat redundant, though I'm not against it. We should however add a note to explain what it's for.

@rivettp In addition to the restriction on the UTI relating to the legal entity, we also have the property chain that links to the LEI of that legal entity which can be used for this purpose. The restriction relating to the legal entity as the generating entity is in the latest version of the ISO standard, though, which I purchased so we would have it.