Semantic, shemantic…rich, open data is what we want.
A few weeks ago, I issued a call to action with respect to creating a W3C working group focused on advancing the implementation of semantic web technologies and approaches in the financial services domain. Chris kindly responded, and in particular took issue with the usefulness/appropriateness of using (the existing) semantic web toolkit (RDF triples, OWL, etc.) due to their innate complexity. He writes:
At the moment though it seems that you have a problem if you need somebody that understands derivatives OR XML schema, and a real headache if you want somebody that understands derivatives AND XML schema.
Two thoughts. Firstly, I’m not a developer and so my enthusiasm for any particular solution or outcome with respect to software and code is necessarily (due to my lack of knowledge) more conceptual than practical: ie it is hard for me to have a robust opinion on the underlying path taken to achieve a certain result. What excites me and I think is important, is to build on the technologies of the web and ultra-cheap storage and bandwidth, to create rich, linked, open data and metadata sets in finance. Much of course already exists as Chris correctly points out, but so much more remains to be done. Secondly, it might be ‘a real headache’ but what 21st century finance needs is exactly people that understand derivatives and XML schemas.* I’m sorry but it isn’t that hard to develop these kind of people, and in a nutshell encapsulated the vision we had for Digital Markets at DrKW several years ago. I suspect that many Digital Generation finance professionals already (or could easily) fit this criterea. (The barriers however are cultural. When we built Digital Markets, while I knew there would be many challenges, I completely underestimated just how threatening such a vision was to the status quo: in particular, the very idea of calling into question the distinction between front and back office staff, even if just a subtle blurring of the line for a few dozen employees, caused the corporate anti-bodies to go on full alert. Removing the distinction between star-belly and plain-belly Sneetches was not something the organization was ready to condone.)
Indeed one of the most important and valuable objectives of setting up such a working group (whether or not it is under the auspices of W3C, although I lean toward not reinventing the wheel and building on the existing infrastructure of such a collaborative industry forum and think there is a better cultural fit with the objectives of such a project at W3C than say at any financial sector industry association…) is to create a focal point – not a gatekeeper (!) – for the community to innovate around a common theme and purpose. Another is to cultivate a shared respect for and understanding of the value of open standards, something that is taken for granted in many other industries but is still anathema on Wall Street and in the City. Of course there are glimmers of light to be seen in things like the FIX Protocol, but even here the underlying cultural mindset was more Microsoft than Unix… Way back in 2003-ish (?), when I was running syndicate at DrKW, we published (on the web) an XML schema describing a new bond issue, with the goal being to help others create e-bookbuilding platforms that would be able to communicate with ours. (I tried to find the link but was unable, any current DKIB folks know if it is still live?) Pretty tame stuff right? Well suffice to say the reaction of our/my peers was various combinations of:
- what the hell is XML and what are you guys on about?
- you guys have the best e-bookbuilding platform, why on earth would you give away your data structure???
- is this some kind of trojan horse? what are you trying to pull?
I no longer work day to day in a big institutional banking environment, so it’s hard for me to judge how much, if at all, these attitudes have evolved over the past couple years. I may be naive but I don’t see why we assume finance and derivative professionals can understand (and apply) concepts like convexity, but balk at expecting them to understand ontology and its implications. I thought these folks were supposed to be clever. In my view it’s about leadership. If the folks in the corner office think ontology is important, so will the rank and file.
So maybe semantic web tools aren’t the only – or even the most important – path to enabling my vision; I’d still think it would be useful to catalyze a more formal community of interest around creating a truly rich set of linked data in financial services and markets. And I hope Chris, and others like him, would be keen to get involved.
* If a few more of these kind of people had populated the top of securitization groups of the last several years, we may have avoided some of the worst excesses; securitization is nothing but managing vast and complex sets of (inter-related) data. Data quality is more important than credit quality: garbage in, garbage out…
Related articles by Zemanta
- A Study of the Adoption and Usage of XML Schema – Its Design and Results (tc.eserver.org)
- Zemanta and the Linked Data Cloud… (ivan-herman.name)
- Analysis of XML Schema Usage (tc.eserver.org)
- Semantic Cloud Abstraction (elasticvapor.com)
- Doing more with your data (blogs.talis.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=679f1b6d-a78c-4d93-9609-101503dab1ad)
