The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Session	Finance
Duration	1.5 hour
Date/Time	Feb 06 2019 17:00 GMT
	9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
	5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener	Mike Bennett and Mark Underwood

Ontology Summit 2019 Financial Explanation Session 1

In this track, we look at explanations in finance, with reference to ontology. Two directions are taken on this:

Using ontologies to explain something

Using something to explain ontologies

Our goal is to discuss the use and application of ontologies in explaining complex financial concepts, in uncovering financial concepts and relations (debt, exposures, risk audit etc.) and in representing financial concepts to end users. There is time allocated for group discussion.

Agenda

12:00pm - 12:15pm Mike Bennett: Financial Explanations Introduction
- slides
12:15pm - 12:30pm Mark Underwood: Explanation Use Cases from Regulatory and Service Quality Drivers in Retail Credit Card Finance Slides
- Slides in PowerPoint
12:30pm - 1pm Mike Bennett: Financial Industry Explanations
- Slides
1pm - 1:30pm Discussion Time

Conference Call Information

Date: Wednesday, 06-February-2019
Start Time: 9:00am PST / 12:00pm EST / 6:00pm CET / 5:00pm GMT / 1700 UTC
- ref: World Clock
Expected Call Duration: 1.5 hour

The Video Conference URL is https://zoom.us/j/689971575
- iPhone one-tap :
  - US: +16699006833,,689971575# or +16465588665,,689971575#
- Telephone:
  - Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 646 558 8665
  - Meeting ID: 689 971 575
  - International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/Iuuiouo
Chat Room

Attendees

Proceedings

[12:16] Gary: @Mark, it would be good to hear your explanation of why, as you note ontologies are used to address some of the problems or factors you list.

[12:19] TerryLongstreth: Please post the IEEE committee number here.

[12:20] Mark Underwood: IEEE P7001

[12:20] Mark Underwood: https://standards.ieee.org/project/7001.html

[12:21] Gary: @Mark what would you say is the relation of the issues you note and the commonsense topic.

[12:22] janet singer: Sounds like use of ontologies for 'understanding customer journeys' requires better interoperation of ontologies and narratives

[12:26] RaviSharma: please recall Dean Allemang's Bank of America Example with use of ontology and customer with multiple profiles

[12:27] TerryLongstreth: @Gary: Common sense is so often untrue, unshared, or inappropriate

[12:27] janet singer: (To get this in the chat) Need to incorporate beliefs, desires, intents, aspirations, fears, other human factors in ontologies

[12:28] Mark Underwood: Intention etc. is covered a bit in the Cog Psych of Explanation, but it's not very satisfactory there

[12:42] RaviSharma: Mike - can we bypass Network Graphs in this list of use of ontology? what is the alternative?

[12:43] Gary:

Can you provide examples of ontologies used in finance for your list: Reasoning

Semantic querying

Network graphs

Business visualization and presentation

Derivation of dictionaries / glossaries ?

[12:46] Mark Underwood: There is a similar reliance in Rhetorical Structure Theory on graphical representations, though the relations and objects related are, well, idiosyncratic to the linguistic or textual elements identified

[12:47] TerryLongstreth: @Mike: can you elucidate your view of ontology supported explanation in the face of different communities being served (naive, expert, boss)

[12:48] TerryLongstreth: c/ontology/model

[12:49] RaviSharma: what is the relation between risk profile and risk models?

[12:52] RaviSharma: Mike- as i and others have been saying that ontologies and uncertainties inherent in items such as Risk Models have to meaningfully interoperate, How?

[12:54] Mark Underwood: RE Slide 23 How was this bridged with existing applications, if at all?

[12:56] Mark Underwood: Wondering if the work of smart contracts (blockchain) have converged with this work?

[12:58] Gary: Your "requires" relations seems to be about various types of dependencies.

[13:10] TerryLongstreth: "Ratings" contrast UK with Italy; doesn't mean West End vs. SOHO

[13:10] RaviSharma: Mike- does entities based explanations lead to better or more likely successful business ontologies?

[13:12] RaviSharma: Mike- how do we construct ontologies with interdomain vocabularies?

[13:21] BobbinTeegarden: @Mark a blockchain is a context unto itself -- like a private LAN inside the 'WAN' of internet. A private context of some activity...

[13:22] RaviSharma: I thought blockchain could also be used for permanently indexing transactions for example?

[13:23] Gary: An intelligent, associative system involved in an explanation dialog with a person, asking for an explanation, will be more useful if it has some model of the person to guide some of the dialog and this model should mature over time. This adds a personal context.

[13:26] Gary: A DB may have implied semantics understood by its community but this isn't a formalized one and thus there will be misunderstandings.

[13:27] TerryLongstreth: My misreading of location occurred on slide 73

[13:27] RaviSharma: Mike- in the interest of time we request you to review unanswered Qs at your convenience?

[13:32] BobbinTeegarden: Aren't all those logics again contextual views of reality?

[13:34] janet singer: Would model of person and their journey be best treated in rules and context extraction? Would like to hear an argument to the contrary as well

[13:34] BobbinTeegarden: a role is another kind of context -- another view or perspective on activities... no?

[13:37] janet singer: But business rules, contexts, math rules, FOL ontologies need to interoperate is good bottom line

[13:37] janet singer: Yes, that first-order gloss is interesting argument

[13:38] janet singer: What would John S say?

Resources

Video Recording

Previous Meetings

... further results

Next Meetings