search

edmcouncil / fibo

The Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) defines the sets of things that are of interest in financial business applications and the ways that those things can relate to one another. In this way, FIBO can give meaning to any data (e.g., spreadsheets, relational databases, XML documents) that describe the business of finance.
https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/
MIT License
314 stars 67 forks source link

validate representation of CrunchBase IPOs #1808

Closed VladimirAlexiev closed 2 years ago

VladimirAlexiev commented 2 years ago

Could you please validate this representation of CrunchBase IPOs in FIBO? The simplest representation is 1 node, this one in FIBO is 25 nodes: image

I made a gist that describes the fields and shows the turtle model.

Thanks in advance! We at Ontotext plan to write a blog post about this experience

mereolog commented 2 years ago

Please find below some quick comments from me - @ElisaKendall may give you a more comprehensive review:

  1. I understand that the current ttl is a kind of stub to be filled with the actual data, e.g., '(money_raised)'^^xsd:decimal will be replaced with the actual value - currently these stubs confuse Protege when it saves the file.
  2. I would make <cb/agent/(org_uuid)/issuer> an instance of Offeror (as well as of Issuer).
  3. <cb/exchange/(stock_exchange_symbol)> as an instance of both Exchange and RegistrationAuthority looks wrong given their definitions.
  4. Strictly speaking, the instances of fibo-fnd-acc-cur:Currency, e.g., <cb/currency/(share_price_currency_code)>, introduce potentially new currencies. I do not think you need them - in the proper version of the ttl file you should reuse the current instances thereof.
  5. We recommend using unique IRI fragments even across naming spaces (see: https://github.com/edmcouncil/fibo/blob/master/ONTOLOGY_GUIDE.md#general-naming-and-labeling-conventions) your instances of Currency do not follow this recommendation.
  6. We also recommend having rdfs:labels for all resources - some of yours do not have them, e.g., <cb/exchange/(stock_exchange_symbol)/code>.

Finally, could you publish in the gist some examples of the actual IPO data?

VladimirAlexiev commented 2 years ago

Thanks @mereolog !

Updated the model image and the gist:

image

VladimirAlexiev commented 2 years ago
mereolog commented 2 years ago

As for:

  • 2: added fibo-fbc-pas-fpas:Offeror. But then what else should I add to satisfy this?
         rdfs:subClassOf  [ rdf:type            owl:Restriction ;
                           owl:onProperty      fibo-fnd-pty-rl:isPlayedBy ;
                           owl:someValuesFrom  [ rdf:type            owl:Restriction ;
                                                 owl:onProperty      fibo-fnd-pty-pty:isAPartyTo ;
                                                 owl:someValuesFrom  fibo-fbc-pas-fpas:Offering]]

These two triples should do the trick:

<cb/agent/(org_uuid)/issuer> fibo-fnd-pty-rl:isPlayedBy <cb/agent/(org_uuid)>.
<cb/agent/(org_uuid)> fibo-fnd-pty-pty:isAPartyTo <cb/ipo/(uuid)/offering>
mereolog commented 2 years ago

As for the rest of your questions, you should contact get in touch with @ElisaKendall .

ElisaKendall commented 2 years ago

@VladimirAlexiev For 3, for ticker symbol, your individuals should be of type ListedSecurityIdentifier and TickerSymbol (both are in the SecuritiesIdentification ontology). Ticker symbols are reassignable, and are specific to the exchange, though.

Related to that, we don't have a reference ontology with all of the ticker symbols for any exchange (since there are over 7K exchanges), but we do have the latest ISO MIC codes as of the end of June (Q2 2022) - these are either operating level or market segment level codes. The class, MarketIdentifier captures both cases, but the codes themselves are in the FBC/FunctionalEntities/MarketsIndividuals ontology and they require the BusinessCentersIndividuals ontology (which says where they are located per whatever they reported to ISO). The only thing is that you need to know whether it is an operating level or segment level market. For IPOs in the US, for issuance of shares of stock, it is typically either the NYSE (Exchange - fibo-fbc-fct-mkti;Exchange-XNYS, MIC - fibo-fbc-fct-mkti;MIC-XNYS), or the Nasdaq (Exchange - fibo-fbc-fct-mkti;Exchange-XNAS, MIC - fibo-fbc-fct-mkti;MIC-XNAS).

A given IPO will be in a specific market, such as the NYSE or Nasdaq in the US, so for the Crunchbase IPO you should be able to get all of those details from the exchange individual, e.g., fibo-fbc-fct-mkti;Exchange-XNAS, which will even tell you which municipality or in some cases FpML business center that the exchange is located in.

For isRegisteredBy, the difference is whether it is registered by the official RA or by someone that they have delegated that role to. Typically for a security, the exchange is the registration authority. So in the individual you create for the exchange, add a triple saying that it is the registration authority and you are done.

So for currency codes, what about using a property chain for hasCurrency --> isIdentifiedBy? You could then use the resulting code rather than the name for matching? We did that at Wells Fargo for a similar case, no problem.

One other thing - you may be able to map at least some of the details to openFIGI (https://www.openfigi.com/) if you have the FIGI for the security. At least some of their symbology data is publicly available. And, some of the data related to the legal entity should be mappable to Open Corporates (https://opencorporates.com/companies?jurisdiction_code=&q=Crunchbase&utf8=%E2%9C%93), likely the Delaware corporation is the one doing the IPO, but you would have to confirm through the offering statement.

Hope this helps - I'll keep checking back, and thanks @mereolog for your help with the other questions!

Elisa

VladimirAlexiev commented 2 years ago

Hi @ElisaKendall, thanks for the feedback!

Do you see any problems on the relations, or I got them right?

image

BTW this mapping was done on request by @peio. His comment: "Both impressive and scary" ;-)

ElisaKendall commented 2 years ago

@VladimirAlexiev For 9 - yes, over 7K individuals, but I think it's really half that for the number of exchanges because we have both the exchanges and the mic codes represented :). The reference data is up to date as of June 2022 now. Currency codes too - we updated those recently.

There are example property chains in the FND/Parties/Parties ontology for a bunch of relationships that we use for linking counterparties up. If you follow the pattern there, you should end up with something like

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="<your prefix>hasCurrencyCode">
    <rdfs:label>has currency code</rdfs:label>
    <owl:propertyChainAxiom rdf:parseType="Collection">
        <rdf:Description rdf:about="&fibo-fnd-acc-cur;hasCurrency">
        </rdf:Description>
        <rdf:Description rdf:about="&lcc-lr;iisIentifiedBy">
        </rdf:Description>
    </owl:propertyChainAxiom>
    <skos:definition>relates something to the relevant currency code for the currency in question</skos:definition>
</owl:ObjectProperty>

We have all of the currencies and currency codes already in FIBO, so you may not need any additional nodes to do this. They are in the ISO 4217 ontology, but I'm assuming that you already knew that.

This is getting much closer to what I would expect. We have some examples in SEC/Equities/EquitiesExampleIndividuals that provide some examples for alphabet and apple shares that might be useful for comparison if you haven't already looked there. They include properties for apple stock on multiple exchanges, and include that the listing is in USD so maybe those examples can provide some additional ideas. Let me know if you have other questions, and good luck!

VladimirAlexiev commented 2 years ago

@ElisaKendall @mereolog

PS: did you write that RDF/XML by hand! I both admire and pity you :-) Cheers!