Individuals representing government entities – at the state/province and national levels – for the US, Canada, EU, and UK are needed to support ongoing work in BE, FBC, and IND, and will be needed for additional FIBO specifications in the pipeline.

Examples include individuals for government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission in FBC, regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, various jurisdiction-specific legal entities such as an LLC in BE, and for specific indices, e.g., US and Canadian unemployment rates, common interest rates such as LIBOR, and so forth.

Development of such individuals depends on the resolution to issue FIBOBE11-6, which provides the structure and semantics on which these individuals depend.

Individuals representing specific government entities are required to support BE, FBC, and IND

This issue is an exact duplicate of issue FIBOBE11-12, and thus should be merged with FIBOBE11-12.

Individuals representing the government entities for the US, Canada, the EU and the UK are required to support development of concepts such as jurisdiction-specific legal entities in BE, jurisdiction-specific government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission and regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, specific indicators and common interest rates such as US and Canadian definitions for unemployment rate, LIBOR, and many others.

Given that the resolution to FIBOBE11-6 provides the structure and semantics for representing government entities, the resolution to this issue will necessarily depend on the resolution to FIBOBE11-6.

Need individuals representing the various government entities for the US, Canada, EU, and UK

Individuals representing the government entities for the US, Canada, the EU and the UK are required to support development of concepts such as jurisdiction-specific legal entities in BE, jurisdiction-specific government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission and regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, specific indicators and common interest rates such as US and Canadian definitions for unemployment rate, LIBOR, and many others.

Given that the resolution to FIBOBE11-6 provides the structure and semantics for representing government entities, the resolution to this issue will necessarily depend on the resolution to FIBOBE11-6.

The content introduced herein is jurisdiction-specific. As a result, and following the approach taken with the FBC RFC, this resolution creates a new Section 10, Jurisdiction-Specific Ontologies, for the purposes of documention. The ontologies consist of individuals only, however, without any new classes, and as a result only the metadata for these ontologies is documented in the specification itself.

This resolution depends on the resolution of FIBOBE11-6, which defines the classes and properties in the form of the Government Entities ontology on which this resolution depends.

Both chartered legal persons and statutory bodies are kinds of legal entities that are created by governments and are not "firms". As a result, they should not be children of judicial person. They should have a new parent under legal entity, and chartered legal person should be renamed to chartered body.

Additionally, the definition of sovereign is really weak, although the intent based on what is modeled is to describe sovereign state rather than the concept of “sovereign” independently from the concept of a sovereign state.

We need sovereign state for FBC, and to relate sovereign state to the country (geopolitical entity) it corresponds to.

CharteredLegalPerson and StatutoryBody should not be children of JuridicalPerson

Both chartered legal persons and statutory bodies are kinds of legal entities that are created by governments and are not "firms". As a result, they should not be children of judicial person. They should have a new parent under legal entity, and chartered legal person should be renamed to chartered body.

Additionally, the definition of sovereign is really weak, although the intent based on what is modeled is to describe sovereign state rather than the concept of "sovereign" independently from the concept of a sovereign state.

We need sovereign state for FBC, and to relate sovereign state to the country (geopolitical entity) it corresponds to.

In the LegalPersons ontology, the LegalEntity concept is defined as something that fulfills the requirement for an LEI-capable entity. The concept should be retained, but moved to the LEIEntities ontology and renamed LEICapableEntity,

The current definition of LegalEntity should really be LEICapableEntity

This issue covers a number of different ontologies in FIBO BE, and due to lower prioritization of the issue as well as lack of time to make the number of changes required, the RTF has agreed to defer resolution to the BE 1.2 RTF.

Based on review by several bankers and attorneys, the notion of a natural person as currently captured in BE is too broad for legal purposes, and what is actually needed is a narrower definition of legally capable person. A legally capable person is either a legally capable adult or emancipated minor as defined in some jurisdiction.

The definition of legally capable adult already exists in FND, but here we need to augment that definition to make the connection to a jurisdiction and to make it a child of LegalPerson in the context of BE.

The definition of NaturalPerson in the LegalPersons ontology is inadequate for banking needs

The resolution to this issue crosses a number of ontologies, which means that resolving it requires considerable documentation. The issue is also considered lower priority by the 1.1 RTF. Given time constraints, the RTF has determined that we need to defer this to the 1.2 RTF.

At the moment all we have is &fibo-be-corp-corp;hasLegalFormAbbreviation of type text.
The legal form should be a class in its own right with abbreviation as one of many properties (or a label), including the jurisidiction/country where it's used and some annotations describing the legal aspects. It should also be related to some of the standard classes such as IncorporatedCompany.

Need better modeling of legal forms

Addressing this issue requires development (1) the resolution to the issues addressed to date by the BE 1.1 RTF, including the new government entities ontologies / individuals, (2) additional government entities individuals, depending on the jurisdictions addressed by the resolution, and (3) research into the various kinds of entities appropriate for any given jurisdiction and creation of new jurisdiction-specific ontologies that provide individuals corresponding to these entities. The work required to address this is significant, and as a result, the BE 1.1 RTF has determined that resolution must be deferred to the BE 1.2 RTF.

The FIBO BE 1.0 specification includes a handful of government entities that are inadequate to support requirements for representing a number of kinds of government and government-sponsored organizations. Examples include what are called government-sponsored enterprises in the US, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are corporations established via statutory law but are privately held corporations, government owned corporations created by Congress such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve banks, government agencies that publish statistics on which many indicators (and derivatives that reference them) depend, supranational government agencies and organizations such as the European Central Bank, various government commissions, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so forth.

The creation of these definitions in a separate ontology (and module) and moving the 3 existing classes to that ontology will facilitate extensions and the addition of jurisdiction-specific entities, such as for the US, EU, UK and other national and multinational governmental entities as they are identified over time.

Definitions for government entities are urgently required to support FBC, IND, and new FIBO RFCs anticipated in areas including loans and securities

The FIBO BE 1.0 specification includes a handful of government entities that are inadequate to support requirements for representing a number of kinds of government and government-sponsored organizations. Examples include what are called government-sponsored enterprises in the US, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are corporations established via statutory law but are privately held corporations, government owned corporations created by Congress such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve banks, government agencies that publish statistics on which many indicators (and derivatives that reference them) depend, supranational government agencies and organizations such as the European Central Bank, various government commissions, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so forth.

The creation of these definitions in a separate ontology (and module) and moving the 3 existing classes to that ontology will facilitate extensions and the addition of jurisdiction-specific entities, such as for the US, EU, UK and other national and multinational governmental entities as they are identified over time.

This issue introduces a new section 9.10, Module: Government Entities. The modifications defined herein are primarily additive, i.e., this adds significant new content to the FIBO Business Entities specification. It also adds a new class to the Functional Entities ontology (section 9.7.1) and deprecates three existing classes in the LEI Entities ontology (section 9.2.4, making them equivalent to three new classes for the same concepts in the new Government Entities ontology). Finally, it creates a new “about file” for the BE 1.1 Specification, including the new ontology in its composite set of imports for ease of use by implementers and other FIBO users.

These changes are needed to support the addition of the business entities described above, as well as to support requirements in FBC and IND for the representation of regulatory agencies, state-backed exchanges and self-regulating organizations, government statistical agencies that publish various economic indicators, and so forth.

When the sole proprietorships ontology was created, the class SoleProprietorship was introduced as an independent party in the new ontology. However, a class by the same name already existed in the Functional Entities ontology which is defined as a kind of functional business entity (business). The latter should be deprecated and made equivalent to the new class to avoid confusion and reasoning issues.

Sole Proprietorship is defined twice – once in the Sole Proprietorships ontology (new) and once in the Functional Entities ontology

When the sole proprietorships ontology was created, the class SoleProprietorship was introduced as an independent party in the new ontology. However, a class by the same name already existed in the Functional Entities ontology which is defined as a kind of functional business entity (business). The latter should be deprecated and made equivalent to the new class to avoid confusion and reasoning issues.

This issue affects section 9.7.1, Functional Entities and the related ontology only. It eliminates a redundant class that is defined with inconsistent semantics, which would be confusing and possibly detrimental for FIBO BE users and implementers.

Currently, BE 1.0 does not provide the ability to represent tribal governments or their jurisdictions. This information is needed to help ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to bribery or corruption, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA), the U.S. Bank Bribery Act (Bribery Act), and other anti-bribery, anti-money laundering (AML) and corruption laws in the jurisdictions where the financial institution does business.

Definition of tribal government entities is needed to support anit-money laundering (AML) requirements

Currently, BE 1.0 does not provide the ability to represent tribal governments or their jurisdictions. This information is needed to help ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to bribery or corruption, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA), the U.S. Bank Bribery Act (Bribery Act), and other anti-bribery, anti-money laundering (AML) and corruption laws in the jurisdictions where the financial institution does business.

Two new ontologies have been integrated into FIBO by the FIBO BE FTF. These new ontologies, along with additional ontologies added to FIBO FND via the RTF, as well as some of the ontologies providing country information from LCC, need to be added to the about files for BE 1.0.

This issue impacts machine readable files, but the corresponding namespaces need to be added to the tables in the architecture section of the specification as well.

Revise "about" files for BE to incorporate new ontologies

This issue addresses revision of the "about" files for BE to incorporate new ontologies, both in FND and in BE. It affects the machine readable RDF/XML Serialized OWL files only at this juncture.

Multiple restrictions that used the property holdsAnInterestIn were identified to be incorrect, Many of the classes that these incorrect restrictions defined had nothing to do with ownership, but rather to control. The property holdsAnInterestIn is a subproperty of owns and therefore implies holds an ownership interest in. In other cases we can also remove the restriction containing holdsAnInterestIn when it is accompanied by a restriction that states there is some equity held, since equity already points back to the formal organization via the representsAnInterestIn relation. These changes will result in corrections and simplification.

The modifications affect the ontologies in the Ownership and Control module of BE only, but may have downstream impact on FIBO FBC and forthcoming Securities specifications.

Make corrections to incorrect restrictions that depended on 'holds an interest in' property

Multiple restrictions that used the property holdsAnInterestIn were identified to be incorrect, Many of the classes that these incorrect restrictions defined had nothing to do with ownership, but rather to control. The property holdsAnInterestIn is a subproperty of owns and therefore implies holds an ownership interest in. In other cases we can also remove the restriction containing holdsAnInterestIn when it is accompanied by a restriction that states there is some equity held, since equity already points back to the formal organization via the representsAnInterestIn relation. These changes will result in corrections and simplification.

The modifications affect the ontologies in the Ownership and Control module of BE only, but may have downstream impact on FIBO FBC and forthcoming Securities specifications.

This issue affects sections 9.6.1 Ownership Parties, 9.6.2 Control Parties, 9.6.3 Corporate Ownership, and 9.6.4 Corporate Control. It also affects section 9.4.1 Partnerships. It fixes identified issues whereby the current set of properties and constraints on classes that involve those properties cause reasoning errors or do not properly distinguish ownership from control.

This resolution depends on the resolution of issue FIBOBE-_12, which modified the Corporate Ownership, Corporate Control, and Partnerships ontologies.

A private limited company is an important legal form that must be included in FIBO Business Entities. This legal form will also describe limited liability companies which are highly pervasive across the United States and must be identified for multiple bank use cases from on-boarding commercial customers, understanding counter parties, and KYC in general.

Business Entities is missing the concept of a private limited company

A private limited company is an important legal form that must be included in FIBO Business Entities. This legal form will also describe limited liability companies which are highly pervasive across the United States and must be identified for multiple bank use cases from on-boarding commercial customers, understanding counter parties, and KYC in general.

This issue introduces a new section 9.9, Module: Private Limited Companies. The modifications defined herein are entirely additive, i.e., this is all new content for the FIBO Business Entities specification.

This resolution depends on the resolution of FIBOBE-_11 and FIBOBE-_9, both of which make changes to the Legal Persons ontology, on which this resolution depends.

Banks treat sole proprietorships as independent entities and often create unique business accounts for them distinct from the personal accounts of the owner. Model sole proprietorship as a formal organization and as a business entity. This is distinct from the sole proprietor which is defined as a PartyInRole.

Need the concept of a Sole Proprietorship as a Business Entity

Banks treat sole proprietorships as independent entities and often create unique business accounts for them distinct from the personal accounts of the owner. This issue requests a model of the sole proprietor concept, as a formal organization and as a business entity. This is distinct from the sole proprietor which should be defined as a PartyInRole.

This issue introduces a new section 9.8, Module: Sole Proprietorships. The modifications defined herein are entirely additive, i.e., this is all new content for the FIBO Business Entities specification.
This resolution depends on the resolution of FIBOBE-_11 and FIBOBE-_9, both of which make changes to the Legal Persons ontology, on which this resolution depends.

Section 9.1, Overview, describes how to read tabular information in the BE specification that has been superseded by the new notation section 6.3. It should be revised to remove detail that is superfluous and provide a quick overview (as intended) of the section.

Section 9.1, Overview, is obsolete

Section 9.1, Overview, describes how to read tabular information in the BE specification that has been superseded by the new notation section 6.3. It should be revised to remove detail that is superfluous and provide a quick overview (as intended) of the section.

In the new section 6.3, above the table including the notation (which is specification independent), there are two paragraphs that reference FBC. These should be revised to reference material in the BE specification

Update the revised text in 6.3 to reference BE rather than FBC

In the new section 6.3, above the table including the new notation, two paragraphs reference FBC. This should be revised to reference BE rather than FBC.

A new table structure was defined by FBC, following the new notation added in section 6.3 of this specification. The tables in section 9 should be revised to reflect this new format, and the discussion in section 9.1 of how to interpret the tables should be removed. The new structure is far easier to consume, and FIBO users from a number of banks have asked for this structural update.

This affects a number of the ontologies in section 9 – all those whose table structures have not been revised by other issue resolutions.

Tables defining ontology content in section 9 are out of date

A new table structure was defined by FBC, following the new notation added in section 6.3 of this specification. The tables in section 9 should be revised to reflect this new format, and the discussion in section 9.1 of how to interpret the tables should be removed. The new structure is far easier to consume, and FIBO users from a number of banks have asked for this structural update.

This affects a number of the ontologies in section 9 – all those whose table structures have not been revised by other issue resolutions.

This issue affects the specification document only. Tables detailing the contents of most of the existing ontologies in BE are revised to improve readability only. The details describing the ontologies have not been changed by this resolution, only the table format, corresponding to the approach outlined in the new section 6.3, Notation.

Section 8 should be updated to reflect the current architectural approach and revised along the lines of the FBC specification, including the addition of a section called "About" BE Vocabularies, as suggested by the architecture board.

Namespace Definitions should be revised to include the additional ontologies added to BE, as well as any dependencies on new ontologies in FND from the FIBO FND 1.1 version of the specification.

Section 8, Architecture, is out of date

Section 8 should be updated to reflect the current architectural approach and revised along the lines of the FBC specification, including the addition of a section called "About" BE Vocabularies, as suggested by the architecture board.

Namespace Definitions should be revised to include the additional ontologies added to BE, as well as any dependencies on new ontologies in FND from the FIBO FND 1.1 version of the specification.

Section 6.3 should be replaced, in its entirety, with section 6.3, Notation, from the FBC specification.

Section 6.3, Interpreting the Business Model Content, is out of date

Section 6.3 should be replaced, in its entirety, with section 6.3, Notation, from the FBC specification.

Section 6.1, How to Read this Specification, is overly complex and should be simplified per what was done for the FBC specification.

Section 6.1 should be simplified along the lines of what was done for FBC.

Section 6.1, How to Read this Specification, is overly complex and should be simplified per what was done for the FBC specification.

The conformance section of the specification, section 2, should be rewritten in a similar fashion to the FBC specification, making it clearer and less complicated for implementors.

The conformance section of the BE specification is overly complex

The conformance section of the specification, section 2, should be rewritten in a similar fashion to the FBC specification, making it clearer and less complicated for implementors.

The introductory section of the specification should be revised to reflect the strategy taken by FBC, namely, a shorter discussion that does not refer to a specific version of the spec, but that simply states it's relationship to FND and discusses the scope of BE itself.

The overview and scope sections of the BE spec refers to an out of date version of Foundations

The introductory section of the specification should be revised to reflect the strategy taken by FBC, namely, a shorter discussion that does not refer to a specific version of the spec, but that simply states it's relationship to FND and discusses the scope of BE itself.

Both chartered legal persons and statutory bodies are kinds of legal entities that are created by governments and are not "firms". As a result, they should not be children of judicial person. They should have a new parent under legal entity, and chartered legal person should be renamed to chartered body.

Additionally, the definition of sovereign is really weak, although the intent based on what is modeled is to describe sovereign state rather than the concept of “sovereign” independently from the concept of a sovereign state.

We need sovereign state for FBC, and to relate sovereign state to the country (geopolitical entity) it corresponds to.

CharteredLegalPerson and StatutoryBody should not be children of JuridicalPerson

The Business Entities FTF determined that the solution to this issue is much more complex than can be addressed as originally thought.

The solution includes developing an additional ontology for governmental entities, which will be integrated with BE in a subsequent revision of the specification. The entities mentioned here, CharteredLegalPerson and StatutoryBody would be revised and migrated to this new ontology, likely in BE 1.1.

At the moment all we have is &fibo-be-corp-corp;hasLegalFormAbbreviation of type text.
The legal form should be a class in its own right with abbreviation as one of many properties (or a label), including the jurisidiction/country where it's used and some annotations describing the legal aspects. It should also be related to some of the standard classes such as IncorporatedCompany.

Need better modeling of legal forms

This issue describes the fact that currently there are a set of enumerated data types defining various legal forms that corporations can take.

The FTF agrees that this needs to be addressed, but doing so requires the addition of jurisdiction-specific classes, as the various legal forms are jurisdiction-specific. A precedent was established for creating sub-modules by jurisdiction in the FBC RFC which was recently adopted. In order to address this particular issue, new jurisdiction-specific ontologies need to be created and added in new modules. These new ontologies also depend on content from LCC, and on additional subdivision codes not yet available in LCC. As a consequence, the FTF has determined that this issue should be deferred to RTF.

The current definition of publisher states that a publisher is "a party that makes some information available to the world at large", which may include a blogger, a publication such as the Financial Times, a government that publishes information about economic indicators, or a data vendor such as Bloomberg.

The Business Dictionary's definition of publisher is "Individual or corporation responsible for the printing and distribution of digital or printed publications." See
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/publisher.html, which could be adapted for FIBO as " a party responsible for the printing and distribution of digital or printed publications", but the operative word, whether or not we revise the definition is "party".
The model does not reflect this, and isn't aligned with the stated definition.

Publisher should be a kind of Party, which is not reflected in the model

This issue affects section 9.2.7, Publishers. The EDMC review team agreed that the definition required adjustment and that the parent class for Publisher should be PartyInRole.

The actual resolution, including step-wise ontology modifications and changes to the specification are included in the attached MS Word resolution. The revised ontology and mdzip ancillary VOM model are also attached.

Identifying the business objectives of an organization is fundamental for a bank to understand and better serve the business entity once it is on-boarded as a customer. Business objectives also differentiate entities into various legal forms and organizational categories that identify for example non profit and religious corporations, as well as non governmental organizations. It also serves to define whether an organization is eligible for certain tax benefits. The semantics of business objectives were missing from the prior release of BE.

Business Entities are Missing Business Objectives

Identifying the business objectives of an organization is fundamental for a bank to understand and better serve the business entity once it is on-boarded as a customer. Business objectives also differentiate entities into various legal forms and organizational categories that identify for example nonprofit and religious corporations, as well as non-governmental organizations. It also serves to define whether an organization is eligible for certain tax benefits. The semantics of business objectives were missing from the prior release of BE.

This issue affects sections 9.2.1 Legal Persons, 9.2.2 Formal Business Organizations, 9.2.3 Corporate Bodies, 9.3.1 Corporations, and 9.4.1, Partnerships.

The modifications defined herein are entirely additive, i.e., this is all new content for Business Entities. There are, however, two new restrictions, in Corporations and Partnerships, that restrict two classes slightly more than in the prior FTF 1 version. These restrictions should have minimal to no impact on existing implementations, however.

This resolution has no dependencies on any others in the FTF 1 report. The changes made herein are, however, required by at least one downstream resolution.

The notion of a business entity is missing from the legal persons ontology. Business entities would include business trusts, corporations, partnerships, companies with limited liability, and potentially sole proprietorships, which are all kinds of businesses.

This is fundamental, and the definition is not the same as that of a legal person or juridical person, so needs distinct treatment.

The Legal Persons ontology is missing the concept of a Business Entity

The notion of a business entity is missing from the legal persons ontology. Business entities would include business trusts, corporations, partnerships, companies with limited liability, and potentially sole proprietorships, which are all kinds of businesses.

This is fundamental, and the definition is not the same as that of a legal person or juridical person, so needs distinct treatment.

This issue is limited to section 9.2.1 Legal Persons. The change is entirely additive and does not impact other FIBO specifications.

This resolution depends on the resolution of FIBOBE-_11, however, which also modifies the Legal Persons ontology.

In the LegalPersons ontology, the LegalEntity concept is defined as something that fulfills the requirement for an LEI-capable entity. The concept should be retained, but moved to the LEIEntities ontology and renamed LEICapableEntity,

The current definition of LegalEntity should really be LEICapableEntity

In the LegalPersons ontology, the LegalEntity concept is defined as something that fulfills the requirement for an LEI-capable entity. The concept should be retained, but moved to the LEIEntities ontology and renamed LEICapableEntity,

The change to make this happen is fairly extensive, and impacts a number of ontologies. The FTF determined that there was not sufficient time to accomplish this in time for completion of the FTF report, and determined that it would be best to defer it to BE 1.2 or BE 2.0.

Based on review by several bankers and attorneys, the notion of a natural person as currently captured in BE is too broad for legal purposes, and what is actually needed is a narrower definition of legally capable person. A legally capable person is either a legally capable adult or emancipated minor as defined in some jurisdiction.

The definition of legally capable adult already exists in FND, but here we need to augment that definition to make the connection to a jurisdiction and to make it a child of LegalPerson in the context of BE.

The definition of NaturalPerson in the LegalPersons ontology is inadequate for banking needs

Based on review by several bankers and attorneys, the notion of a natural person as currently captured in BE is too broad for legal purposes, and what is actually needed is a narrower definition of legally capable person. A legally capable person is either a legally capable adult or emancipated minor as defined in some jurisdiction.

The definition of legally capable adult already exists in FND, but here we need to augment that definition to make the connection to a jurisdiction and to make it a child of LegalPerson in the context of BE.

The references section of the specification should be revised to reflect current or non-versioned specifications rather than old versions that do not include required content.

The normative references section of the BE specification points to older versions of OMG specifications

The references section of the specification should be revised to reflect current or non-versioned specifications rather than old versions that do not include required content.

Various US states and other jurisdictions define corporations that are incorporated through the issuance of shares in a number of ways. The term GeneralStockCorporation appears to be specific to the State of California. Other states call this "Domestic Stock Corporation", "Domestic Business Corporation", "Domestic Corporation", and so forth. What is actually needed are two classes as subclasses of Corporation: (1) a concept that represents a corporation incorporated through the issuance of shares, which is disjoint with a body incorporated through agreement and a body incorporated with guarantee, and (2) a parallel concept that represents a for-profit corporation that is disjoint with a nonprofit corporation. Jurisdiction-specific corporations that are both for-profit and stock corporations can specialize these classes as appropriate.

The class name and definition of GeneralStockCorporation is jurisdiction-specific and not sufficiently broad for banking requirements

Various US states and other jurisdictions define corporations that are incorporated through the issuance of shares in a number of ways. The term GeneralStockCorporation appears to be specific to the State of California. Other states call this "Domestic Stock Corporation", "Domestic Business Corporation", "Domestic Corporation", and so forth. What is actually needed are two classes as subclasses of Corporation: (1) a concept that represents a corporation incorporated through the issuance of shares, which is disjoint with a body incorporated through agreement and a body incorporated with guarantee, and (2) a parallel concept that represents a for-profit corporation that is disjoint with a not for profit corporation. Jurisdiction-specific corporations that are both for-profit and stock corporations can specialize these classes as appropriate.

This issue affects sections 9.2.3 Corporate Bodies, 9.3.1 Corporations, 9.4.1, Partnerships, 9.6.3 Corporate Ownership, and 9.6.4 Corporate Control. It involves (1) changing the name of GeneralStockCorporation to StockCorporation, and adding a second class, ForProfitCorporation, (2) teasing out the two aspects of the definition of the current GeneralStockCorporation to separate the incorporation type from the profit motivation, and (3) revising the places in BE where the name change is required (and/or where use of ForProfitCorporation, or the union of the two classes makes sense).

To date, the current GeneralStockCorporation class has only been used in BE, and thus the name change has no impact on the FIBO FBC and FIBO IND specifications, nor does it impact work in progress on other FIBO specifications.

Note that resolution of this issue depends on the resolution to FIBOBE-_11.

Review of any state web site for defining a business call this "Corporation". Not all corporations are companies, however. The actual restrictions on this class are exactly those appropriate for Corporation, but the text definition should be something like:

"A corporation is a separate legal entity owned by shareholders who enjoy protection from personal liability. Corporations are taxed annually on their earnings; corporate shareholders pay individual income tax on these earnings when they are distributed as dividends.

A corporation is managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, which generally determines corporate policy. Officers manage the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. Shareholders do not participate in day-to-day management activities. Management structure can be altered by committees of board members and shareholder agreements. Shareholders generally are not personally liable for obligations of the corporation."

Definition origin: http://www.business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/DefiningaBusiness/Corporation.aspx

The Corporation class should have the following subclasses:

General Stock Corporation
Non-Profit Corporation
Benefit Corporation (which we have already in Functional Entities)
Common Interest Development Corporation

Non-Profit / benefit corporations have a corporate structure that can be defined using restrictions, and are not functional entities. They should be defined as kinds of corporations.

The name and definition of IncorporatedCompany are inadequate

This issue affects section 9.2.3, Corporate Bodies, section 9.3.1, Corporations Ontology, in the FIBO BE 1.0 Alpha specification, with downstream impact on section 9.7.1, Functional Entities, section 9.6.3, Corporate Ownership, section 9.6.4, Corporate Control, and section 9.4.1, Partnerships.

Further review of the current set of concepts and related definitions has led to the consensus that the BodyCorporate concept in the Corporate Bodies ontology and the concept of a Corporation, at the highest level of abstraction, are synonymous. Thus, the consensus is to rename BodyCorporate to Corporation, and integrate a source-able definition for it from a respected legal source, as long as that definition is essentially the same as what we currently have and is not jurisdiction-specific. Links to jurisdiction-specific definitions may be provided, however.

Additionally, a better name for the current IncorporatedCompany concept is GeneralStockCorporation, which corresponds to the broader meaning of the semantics in the current ontology for incorporated company. Again a better terminological definition should be sourced from an appropriate reference, as long as it is in keeping with the current text definition.

• • • The resolution of this issue assumes that the resolution to issues FBEF-3, resolving mechanical syntax issues, issues FBEF-4, FBEF-6, FBEF-7, and FBEF-9 through FBEF-12, which resolve issues related to modifications in FIBO FND by the 1.0 finalization process, as well as issues FBEF-20 through FBEF-24, FBEF-30, FBEF-31, FBEF-34, and FBEF-35, which resolve lint errors, reasoning issues due to the hasRole property, and miscellaneous annotation issues have already been applied.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the CorporateControl ontology should also be addressed. These include a number of missing labels, particularly on properties, as well as missing datatypes for some annotations.

There is also a bug in the VOM model with respect to duplicate proxy classes for IncorporatedCompany, one in the main model folder and one in the Proxies folder. These should be reconciled to eliminate the MagicDraw null pointer exception that arises when one attempts to find related information when clicking on one or the other proxy class.

Note that there are also missing definitions for properties and classes in this ontology that should be addressed under a separate issue.

Revise the CorporateControl ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues related to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the CorporateControl ontology should also be addressed. These include a number of missing labels, particularly on properties, as well as missing datatypes for some annotations.

There is also a bug in the VOM model with respect to duplicate proxy classes for IncorporatedCompany, one in the main model folder and one in the Proxies folder. These should be reconciled to eliminate the MagicDraw null pointer exception that arises when one attempts to find related information when clicking on one or the other proxy class.

Note that there are also missing definitions for properties and classes in this ontology that should be addressed under a separate issue.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

Revise the CorporateOwnership ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues due to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the CorporateOwnership ontology should also be addressed.

There is a need for FIBO to make a statement about Legal Entity. However there is ambiguity about the meaning of Legal Entity between the general legal defintion and between ISO 17742, which is more constrained.

Reconcile definition for Legal Entity

This issue affects section 9.2.1, Legal Persons, section 9.2.3, CorporateBodies, and section 9.2.4, LEIEntities, in the FIBO BE 1.0 Alpha specification, with downstream impact on section 9.7.1, Functional Entities, section 9.4.1, Partnerships, and section 9.5.1, Trusts.

The changes to the LegalPersons ontology include the introduction of a LegalEntity class, which, because of where it belongs in the hierarchy, has been added there rather than to the LEIEntities ontology, and incorporating a couple of related properties, one of which is moved from the LEIEntities ontology. One additional modification to the definition of StatutoryBody in LegalPersons, so that it can be used appropriately as the parent for regulatory agencies and other similar organizations, is also included.

One minor change to align the isincorporatedIn property with the new properties in LegalPersons is made to the CorporateBodies ontology.

Changes corresponding to those made in LegalPersons are made in LEIEntities – deleting the property that was moved, removing a restriction on ContractuallyCapableEntity and modifying the relationships between the LegalEntityIdentifier to correspond with the LegalEntity class in LegalPerson rather than to FormallyConstitutedOrganization. Three new classes are also introduced in LEIEntities, to cover those that are mentioned in the ISO 17442 standard, along with an additional property relating an entity to its address of legal formation, as indicated in the standard.

Minor revisions to FunctionalEntities, Partnerships, and Trusts, to integrate those ontologies with the revisions to LegalPersons and LEIEntities are also included.

The actual text of the resolution is provided in the attached MS Word document.

Several restrictions in FunctionalEntities are on the property takesForm, which was eliminated (with this definition) in foundations. In these cases, the restriction should instead be on the hasIdentity property in Relations.

Revise the FunctionalEntities ontology to reflect changes in FIBO FND

Several restrictions in FunctionalEntities are on the property takesForm, which was eliminated (with this definition) in foundations. In these cases, the restriction should instead be on the hasIdentity property in Relations.

The Publishers ontology was introduced to BE as a part of the Indices and Indicators (IND) specification. Alignment with FND involves making the Publication class a child of Document.

Revise the Publishers ontology to reflect the modifications made to FIBO FND

The Publishers ontology was introduced to BE as a part of the Indices and Indicators (IND) specification. Alignment with FND involves making the Publication class a child of Document.

In the process of finalizing FND, the property isDomiciledIn was moved from CorporateBodies (BE) to FormalOrganization (FND). This property needs to be removed now from CorporateBodies, to eliminate the duplication.

IsDomiciledIn property was moved from BE to FND

In the process of finalizing FND, the property isDomiciledIn was moved from CorporateBodies (BE) to FormalOrganization (FND). This property needs to be removed now from CorporateBodies, to eliminate the duplication.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

Additionally, in FND, the Control class changed names to ControllingCapacity, and the corresponding references need to be updated in this ontology to reflect the change.

Revise the ControlParties ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues due to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A lint issue related to the use of an equivalence relationship together with a subclass relation on the left-hand side of a related equation on the ControlledParty class has also been corrected, replacing the equivalent class relation with a subclass relation.

Additionally, in FND, the Control class changed names to ControllingCapacity, and the corresponding references need to be updated in this ontology to reflect the change. Similarly, the domain of the holds property in FND/Relations was modified to be an AutonomousAgent, so properties of relative parties in ControlParties that were subproperties of holds should be modified to remove this subproperty relationship.

Also, a Percentage class was added to FND/BusinessFacingTypes as a part of the FND revision, which is a better fit than the percentageValue datatype as the basis for representing the DegreeOfControl an EntityControllingParty has over another organization. The data property has been eliminated in favor of an object property between DegreeOfControl and Percentage, called hasPercentageControl, and a restriction on that property.

Finally, a handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the ControlParties ontology should also be addressed.

Pellet hangs when reasoning over the FunctionalEntities ontology, which appears to be caused by equivalences in the definitions of Business and Merchant. Relaxing these to be subclass relationships (i.e., changing them from necessary and sufficient conditions to just necessary conditions) eliminates the issue.

Correct reasoning error in Functional Entities caused by improper equivalence relations

Pellet hangs when reasoning over the FunctionalEntities ontology, which appears to be caused by equivalences in the definitions of Business and Merchant. Relaxing these to be subclass relationships (i.e., changing them from necessary and sufficient conditions to just necessary conditions) eliminates the issue. The issue corresponds to a "lint" error produced by Pellet in testing. Relaxing these to subclass relationships (i.e., changing them from a necessary and sufficient condition to just a necessary condition) eliminates the issue.

Pellet hangs when reasoning over the Corporate Bodies ontology, which appears to be caused by the equivalence in the definition of BodyCorporate to being constituted by an instrument of incorporation. The issue corresponds to a "lint" error produced by Pellet in testing. Relaxing this to a subclass relationship (i.e., changing it from a necessary and sufficient condition to just a necessary condition) eliminates the issue.

Potential reasoning error in Corporate Bodies caused by equivalence

Pellet hangs when reasoning over the Corporate Bodies ontology, which appears to be caused by the equivalence in the definition of BodyCorporate to being constituted by an instrument of incorporation. The issue corresponds to a "lint" error produced by Pellet in testing. Relaxing this to a subclass relationship (i.e., changing it from a necessary and sufficient condition to just a necessary condition) eliminates the issue.

This issue affects section 9.2.3, CorporateBodies Ontology, in the FIBO BE 1.0 Alpha specification.

• • • The resolution of this issue assumes that the resolution to issue FBEF-3, resolving mechanical syntax issues, and the resolution to FBEF-6, which addressed the migration from isDomiciledIn from BE to FND, have already been applied, FBEF-3, first, followed by FBEF-6.

In addition to correcting ”lint” issue, this resolution addresses the renaming of JudicialPerson in LegalPersons, as a part of issue resolution to FBEF-20, to JuridicalPerson.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

Revise LegalPersons to eliminate hasRole reasoning error

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the Partnerships ontology should also be addressed.

Revise the Partnerships ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues related to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the Partnerships ontology should also be addressed.

The Executives ontology contains a number of properties and/or restrictions that were impacted by modifications to the FIBO FND ontologies. These include, but may not be limited to:
(1) changing the domain of the appoints relation to be an AutonomousAgent, which is incompatible with its use in a restriction on the DeFactoControllingInterestParty class in an extended definition in Executives, as well as in a restriction on BoardOfDirectors, which is an EntityControllingParty
(2) changing the domain of the elects relation to be a LegalPerson, which is incompatible with its use in a restriction on the VotingShareholder class,
(3) several uses of hasRole, which should be modified to be isPlayedBy in all cases,
(4) migration of the constrains property from Relations to LegalCore, which causes a syntax error in a restriction on an extended definition of InstrumentOfIncorporation

Revise the Executives ontology to reflect the modifications made to FIBO FND

The Executives ontology contains a number of properties and/or restrictions that were impacted by modifications to the FIBO FND ontologies. These include, but may not be limited to:
(1) changing the domain of the appoints relation to be an AutonomousAgent, which is incompatible with its use in a restriction on the DeFactoControllingInterestParty class in an extended definition in Executives, as well as in a restriction on BoardOfDirectors, which is an EntityControllingParty
(2) changing the domain of the elects relation to be a LegalPerson, which is incompatible with its use in a restriction on the VotingShareholder class,
(3) several uses of hasRole, which should be modified to be isPlayedBy in all cases,
(4) migration of the constrains property from Relations to LegalCore, which causes a syntax error in a restriction on an extended definition of InstrumentOfIncorporation

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.C

Revise the Trusts ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues related to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the Trusts ontology should also be addressed.

Several modifications to FND impact the FormalBusinessOrganizations ontology. These include:
(1) moving isIdentifiedBy from Relations to Agents, and
(2) introduction of the IdentifiersAndIndices ontology under Arrangements, which has an impact on OrganizationIdentificationCode and OrganizationIdentificationScheme (OrganizationIdentificationCode should be renamed OrganizationIdentifier and made a child of Identifier, and OrganizationIdentificationScheme should be made a child of IdentificationScheme, and the hasUniqueIdentifier property would be eliminated as it is already present in the new parent class)

The migration of isIdentifiedBy causes a syntax error to occur in the ontology when loaded in any ontology tool.

Revise the FormalBusinessOrganizations ontology to reflect changes in FIBO FND

Several modifications to FND impact the FormalBusinessOrganizations ontology. These include:
(1) moving isIdentifiedBy from Relations to Agents, and
(2) introduction of the IdentifiersAndIndices ontology under Arrangements, which has an impact on OrganizationIdentificationCode and OrganizationIdentificationScheme (OrganizationIdentificationCode should be renamed OrganizationIdentifier and made a child of Identifier, and OrganizationIdentificationScheme should be made a child of IdentificationScheme, and the hasUniqueIdentifier property would be eliminated as it is already present in the new parent class)

During the FND FTF process, the strategy for metadata headers, which ontologies to import, ontology naming, and related conventions were revised. The BE ontologies require revision to support the current strategy. This includes:
(1) eliminate the default namespace,
(2) revise the metadata to use the revised metadata strategy put into place for FND, including the approach to model licensing, and reference the about files,
(3) shorten the ontology name,
(4) revise imports such that only those ontologies that are actually referenced in the body of the ontology are actually imported, and
(5) make sure every annotation includes its datatype.

Mechanical / formatting changes to all BE ontologies per FND methodology

All of the files incorporated in this upload (which is all of the main BE ontologies aside from the about files) have been updated to reflect the changes specified in the issue resolution.

Changes to the specification to reflect the revised metadata will be auto generated at the end of the FTF work.

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

Revise the OwnershipParties ontology to eliminate potential reasoning issues due to hasRole

Testing with various reasoners and test data shows that reasoning over the hasRole relationship in some circumstances returns incorrect results. Replacing the hasRole property with isPlayedBy corrects this issue.

The OwnershipParties ontology also included a dependency on the isOwnedBy property in FND/Ownership, whose domain changed as a result of the FND FTF 2 work. The corresponding revision has been made in this ontology.

A handful of minor discrepancies in annotations that were missed via corrections for mechanical / syntax changes to the OwnershipParties ontology have also been addressed.

The identifies property, which is used in a restriction on LegalEntityIdentifier, was moved from Relations to Agents in FND, which causes a syntactic error in LEIEntities. Also, in FormalBusinessOrganizations, OrganizationIdentificationCode was renamed to OrganizationIdentifier, and the corresponding change is required in LEIEntities.

Correction for identifies move from Relations to Agents to LEIEntities

The identifies property, which is used in a restriction on LegalEntityIdentifier, was moved from Relations to Agents in FND, which causes a syntactic error in LEIEntities. Also, in FormalBusinessOrganizations, OrganizationIdentificationCode was renamed to OrganizationIdentifier, and the corresponding change is required in LEIEntities.

Several changes made to FIBO FND impact the Corporations ontology, including: (1) migration of identifies and isIdentifiedBy from Relations to Agents, (2) the introduction of FinancialDates, and (3) the introduction of IdentifiersAndIndices. The first of these causes bugs when the Corporations ontology is loaded in Protege.

Revise the Corporations ontology to reflect changes in FIBO FND

Several changes made to FIBO FND impact the Corporations ontology, including: (1) migration of identifies and isIdentifiedBy from Relations to Agents, (2) the introduction of FinancialDates, and (3) the introduction of IdentifiersAndIndices. The first of these causes bugs when the Corporations ontology is loaded in Protege.

"About" files for the FIBO BE specification, at the specification level and at the module level, are needed in order to reduce the amount of repetitive material in the headers of the individual ontologies. This follows the approach taken for the FIBO Foundations (FND) 1.0 specification.

About files for the BE ontology and modules are needed

The "about" files provide content describing the BE specification and modules, complementing the content in the specification itself and in some cases duplicating it in the form of RDF/XML metadata, primarily for use in (1) describing the machine-readable files for any users of those files, (2) for potential use in tagging the specification document on the OMG site, and (3) to provide a high-level ontology in the case of AboutBE-1.0.rdf that imports all of the others, to support ease of use.

This revision is to machine readable files only, and does not impact the specification document.

At the moment all we have is &fibo-be-corp-corp;hasLegalFormAbbreviation of type text.
The legal form should be a class in its own right with abbreviation as one of many properties (or a label), including the jurisidiction/country where it's used and some annotations describing the legal aspects. It should also be related to some of the standard classes such as IncorporatedCompany.

Need better modeling of legal forms

At the moment all we have is &fibo-be-corp-corp;hasLegalFormAbbreviation of type text.

The legal form should be a class in its own right with abbreviation as one of many properties (or a label), including the jurisidiction/country where it's used and some annotations describing the legal aspects. It should also be related to some of the standard classes such as IncorporatedCompany.

Resolutoin of this issue requires further research, and thus it is deferred to FTF 2.