D.3 CFI
Add paragraph;
It should be noted that multiple different classification systems, taxonomies, and ontologies exist, will persist, and it is unlikely a single definitive system will emerge. This is due to multiple factors, notwithstanding legal, regional, jurisdictional, operational and other differences. As such, the primary function of the FIGI Security Type classification is to enable interoperability across approaches.

6.3.8 Market Sector
The relationship between a Financial Instrument and a Market Sector is as follows:
• A Financial Instrument may have up to, but not exceeding, one Market Sector.

to add new 6.2.x (6.2.6 Market Sector:
A market sector is a category of a financial instrument that provides a general categorization based on prevailing industry conventions, such as Equity based versus currency based instruments. A set of individuals that are members of the class “MarketSector” are maintained by the Registration Authority and have an association with the “SecurityType” class.

Remove:

The FIGI specification includes two subordinate vocabularies: - SecurityTypes.rdf, which contains all of the named individuals for security types as of the date of publication, and - PricingSources.rdf, which contains all of the named individuals for pricing sources as of the date of publication.

Pricing sources have been removed and security types is set to an external codeset

Remove point 3 that references "Two controlled vocabularies". These have been removed elsewhere and turned to external references

AboutFIGI-1.0 TTL file provided in spec 1.2 was .rdf format, not ttl and will be replaced/revised with the proper format.

file ref in 1.2 is dtc/24-08-32. The final supplied files for 1.3 submission will fix this file format issue.

To add to 1. SCOPE section as paragraph prior to 1.1 Overview;

The Financial Instrument Global Identifier specification details an open data based approach for identifying financial instruments through use of a permanent, semantically meaningless code key with associated identifying metadata.

The Financial Instrument Global Identifier provides a data model approach to identifying financial instruments in various contexts. These contexts relate to different processes across asset classes and operational needs where associated metadata needs may differ for the same financial instrument or collection of financial instruments (such as baskets).

Through use of a persistent, semantically meaningless code (e.g. the FIGI), the methodology allows for creation of a self referential data model and creation of object entities that can satisfy different needs requiring different levels of granularity through associated metadata based on contextual usage.

Remove the following files, as .xml and .xml are outdated and no longer used generally;

1. FIGI UML XMI
FIGI/20150501/GlobalInstrumentIdentifiers.xml
dtc/15-05-29

2. GlobalInstrumentIdentifiers
FIGI/GlobalInstrumentIdentifiers.xmi
dtc/15-05-05

3. PricingSources
FIGI/PricingSources.xmi
dtc/15-05-05

4. SecurityTypes
FIGI/SecurityTypes.xmi
dtc/15-05-05

D.5 MIC (fixes to MIC purpose and relationship to exchange and/or pricing source)
Revise first paragraph to read:
“The Market Identifier Code (MIC) provides a method of identifying exchanges, trading platforms, and systemic internalizers as locations where Financial Instruments are exchanged or transacted. This function relates to parts of FIGI, in particular, the Exchange Code. Differentiation exists in:”

Revise paragraph that reads:
"Multiple Financial Instruments can be associated with a single name as there is no requirement that the name of a Financial Instrument specify all of the individuating characteristics of a Financial Instrument, e.g., the pricing source. There is, however, nothing precluding such specificity either. "

to read:

"Multiple Financial Instruments can be associated with a single name as there is no requirement that the name of a Financial Instrument specify all of the individuating characteristics of a Financial Instrument, e.g., the exchange code. There is, however, nothing precluding such specificity either. "

revise last sentence that reads:
It is grouped, along with Pricing Source, as an associated Code. Exchange codes are associated with Financial Instruments through the “has” object property. (“has” is used rather than a more descriptive object property such as “hasAssociatedCode” in order to leverage reasoning facilities and be “mappable” to FIBO relations.)

to read:

It is an associated Code. Exchange codes are associated with Financial Instruments through the “has” object property. (“has” is used rather than a more descriptive object property such as “hasAssociatedCode” in order to leverage reasoning facilities and be “mappable” to FIBO relations.)

Revise bullet, 2nd paragraph of Composite Global Identifier that reads;
"The Composite Global Identifier only applies to a limited subset of Global Identifiers. In particular, it only applies to those Global Identifiers that can be differentiated based on either the venue on which the asset is traded or on the pricing source of the asset"

Remove this text

edit for clarification

4.2; add to financial instrument description ; “or baskets thereof.”

D.4; revise/ fix (missing words, and account for latest 20022 revision);
“ISO 20022 is a business modelling standard that specifies the structure of a metadata repository containing descriptions of business processes such that physical messages can be generated for business communication. The relationship between ISO 20022 and FIGI is an intersecting, rather than overlapping, relationship. In fact, the FIGI standard is formally recognized as having a place within ISO 20022 within the accepted external codesets. Strictly speaking, however, ISO 20022 and FIGI are entirely independent of one another as they seek to do very different things.”

D.2 point 1;

Revise paragraph
Scope: The FIGI provides, both in practice and in future implementation, a much broader scope than does ISIN. In particular, FIGI identifies not only securities, but, potentially, all financial instruments. The reason that the scope is so much broader is a function of purpose: the ISIN is focused on serving as a reference for a fungible instrument at the initial issuance level, which serves a proper and needed function in and of itself. FIGI, in contrast, while capable of serving in that capacity, is focused on providing a consistent and unique data point that serves to identify financial instruments and the different contexts they exist in throughout their lifecycle, so as to enable robust and comprehensive data management and, from that, compliance.

To

Scope: The FIGI provides, both in practice and in future implementation, a much broader scope than does ISIN. In particular, FIGI identifies not only securities, but, potentially, all financial instruments and inherent self relationships. The reason that the scope is so much broader is a function of purpose: the ISIN is focused on serving as a reference for a fungible instrument at the initial issuance level, which serves a proper and needed function in and of itself. FIGI, in contrast, while capable of serving in that capacity, is focused on providing a consistent and unique data model that serves to identify financial instruments and the different contexts they exist in throughout their lifecycle, so as to enable robust and comprehensive data management and, from that, compliance.

Page 31, Section B.2 Request Service;
“Meeting the first condition is trivial: since the RA serves as the system of record for all FIGIs, assigning a novel FIGI is merely a matter of creating a new identifier and checking against the existing inventory to ensure that the identifier is new. Exactly how the RA (or a CP, see below) might elect to do this is left open to the organization in question, provided that uniqueness obtains.”

Correct last sentence of “provided that uniqueness obtains.” To be “provided that uniqueness is obtained.”

Revise first paragraph that states: “As specified above, each Global Identifier has at least one Security Type associated with it. The Security Types are specified in the associated SecurityTypes.rdf vocabulary.”
To:
“As specified above, each Global Identifier has at least one Security Type associated with it. The Security Types are to be maintained and provided by the Registration Authority in a machine readable format or reference to such.”

Revise paragraph under “New Security Types are invented” from
“The financial sector is dynamic and new financial instruments are constantly being created. Some are simply variations on existing instruments, e.g., a new mutual fund, but some are genuinely novel. Given the granularity of the security types currently inventoried in this controlled vocabulary (375 uniquely specified security types), it is likely that new financial instruments will emerge that require a new label.”
To
“The financial sector is dynamic and new financial instruments are constantly being created. Some are simply variations on existing instruments, e.g., a new mutual fund, but some are genuinely novel. Given the granularity of the security types currently inventoried, it is likely that new financial instruments will emerge that require a new identifier and description.”

And revise descriptive paragraph regarding “the coverage of FIGI expands” from:
As of the 2014 OMG publication of this standardFIGI covered over 150 million financial instruments. A large number to be sure, but given the granularity of FIGI, e.g., differentiating between AAPL being traded on one exchange as opposed to another, this list is certainly incomplete. Over time, additional financial instruments that simply are not covered at present will be incorporated into FIGI at which point the security type list will need to be expanded.
To:
As of the 2025 OMG publication of this standard, FIGI covers over 1.4 billion financial instruments, across particular contexts that necessarily differ across security types. Over time, additional financial instruments that are not covered at present will be incorporated into FIGI at which point the security type list will need to be expanded.

Some of the related text was revised via the 1.1 revision to the specification, and through issues raised in 1.2. The definitions and annotations in the FIGI ontology should be updated so that they are ISO 704 compliant and to reflect the updated details in the FIGI 1.1+ issues.