The concept of a structured collection is not limited to indicators, and should be moved from IND to FND/Arrangements. This is needed so that a new concept, that of a Record, can be added to FND/Documents (using the definition from the OMG's RMS), as a child of Document and of StructuredCollection, which is required to fix the definition of an account in FBC.

This is a first step in the process – a subsequent revision to IND should deprecate the current StructuredCollection concept in favor of this one added to FND.

Move StructuredCollection from IND to FND

The concepts of a structured collection and record are needed to support a number of downstream definitions, and because they are very general notions, they should be added to Foundations.

A schedule is defined as a collection of potential / planned / possible / past / events associated with dates. It has no parent class at the moment, but should be modeled as a child of Collection. It's definition should also be revised to reflect the broader sense as stated herein rather than as a "table of dates", with an explanatory note that talks about the difference between ad hoc and regular schedules.

There are a number of places in the other downstream FIBO ontologies where the use of a generic hasSchedule property would be appropriate in restrictions, rather than inventing several local and more restricted properties.

In addition, the custom datatypes for dateValue and durationValue should be deprecated in favor of xsd:string, to eliminate reasoning errors in downstream processing.

Individuals for the days of the week are also needed to support definition of certain rules for loans (interest payments) and coupon payments. These should be defined as time intervals in accordance with the OMG DTV specification.

A number of the definitions need to be reformulated to correspond to our policy of using ISO 704-style definitions as well.
Attachments

Schedule in FND/DatesAndTimes should be a child of Collection

This issue resolution covers a number of issues in the FinancialDates ontology, including addressing the problems identified in the issue itself, including numerous editorial changes to the annotations on various concepts in the ontology, as highlighted in the text of the resolution, attached below.

comprises is used in places in FIBO as a broader concept than has part, that is somewhat related to hasPart (i.e., similar to and possibly a synonym of includes), where we need cardinality restrictions on how many parts of some type that something can have, or on the thing that something must be included in. Comprises is not defined as transitive to facilitate the use of cardinality restrictions.

In order to help make this clear, we need an explanatory note on comprises, and an inverse for it, possibly called isIncludedIn, that can be used for this purpose.

comprises needs an explanatory note and inverse property

This issue involves adding a note to the definition of comprises as well as creating a new inverse property, isIncludedIn, for use in other downstream ontologies.

The resolution of this issue depends on the resolution of FIBOFND12-2 and FIBOFND12-3.

The "isUsedBy" property links a currency to the geopolitical entity that uses that currency, and was originally intended to be useful with not only autonomous agents but entities such as geopolitical entities in its range.

The addition of the domain for uses and range for isUsedBy as a part of the FND 1.1 RTF work now cause individuals that are geopolitical entities to be inferred to be AutonomousAgents, which is wrong.

The domain of uses and range of is used by should be removed, eliminating this constraint, and the definitions revised accordingly.

The domain of the "uses" and range of "isUsedBy", added in FND 1.1, cause reasoning errors

The correction to this issue involves loosening the domain and range restrictions on two properties: isUsedBy and uses in the Relations ontology, and revising the definition of uses so that it does not refer to an autonomous agent as the entity in the domain of uses.

Resolution of this issue depends on the resolution to FIBOFND12-2.

provides: makes something available to

The “to” at the end implies a 3 way relationship between provider, what’s provided and whom it is provided to. In fact the predicate does not involve the latter at all so the “to” should be removed.

Definition of property 'provides' implies a specific audience

Resolution of this issue requires (1) modification of the Relations ontology to revise the definition of provides, and (2) modification of Table 10-11, Relations Details, to make the corresponding change to the text of the definition.

The change to the ontology itself necessitates revision of its version IRI as well.