Practical Financial Industry Buisness Ontology (FIBO) w/Mike Bennett
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лют 2023
- The Financial Industry Buisness Ontology, also known as FIBO, is one of the most well known ontologies out there. Being used in part by the worlds financial industry and those working with financial data, FIBO is an upper or meta=ontology which means its used in a lot of different ways. But its also difficult to understand how to use it if you are not familiar with upper ontologies. Come join me and Mike Bennett, one of the main architects behind FIBO, in discussing how to use it, and the rationale behind it.
Note: all opinions are my own as a data scientist and researcher in the field and are not representative of the tool/company being reviewed, nor of any other company.
Stay in touch:
LinkedIn: / ashleighnfaith
Direct Message: isadatathing-at-gmail.com - Наука та технологія
Great discussion Mike. Listeners won't necessarily have realised just how pivotal you were to the creation and development of FIBO, at a time when we didn't have any other ontological financial standards.
I second that. I didn’t want to fan-geek out too much in the video, but it was really cool having such a groundbreaking person to the field on the channel.
Thank you for sharing this insightful exchange. I found FIBO great for reuse, even though it took me a while to find some concepts for my specific use case. Everyone who worked or is working on FIBO is doing a phenomenal job!
That’s the trick! It sometimes takes a while for folks to get the hang of using it, but once you do, it’s a great resource.
Glad to see someone covering FIBO. However, it’s not an “upper ontology” like BFO, UFO, or DOLCE is.
I love when folks bring more nuance to the conversation! If you ever want to come on the channel and discuss, let me know.
There is no grounding logic in the fibo Ontology so that makes it a fancy taxonomy.
I take your point and add that it’s a point of conversation still going on in the industry. If you speak to those in medical, many of their ontologies would be considered “fancy taxonomies” and even outside of medical, even the upper level nodes in an ontology could also be considered taxonomy terms (take customer for example) and those also can be grounded in logical constraints so it’s common for folks to mix the two sometimes. It is all semantics after all, so I’m not surprised this is the case!
@AshleighFaith, an insightful examination of ontologies within the OBO Foundry, particularly those derived from the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) 2020, reveals a foundational aspect: all these ontologies are grounded in the terminological framework established by BFO. This includes adherence to common logic principles that underpin all BFO-aligned productions. The significant advantage here is the reuse of semantic and logical structures, which fosters consistency and interoperability across different ontological systems.
At the domain level, the logic becomes more specific and is tailored to suit the needs and nuances of individual BFO-derived artifacts. This vertical application of logic ensures that domain-specific ontologies not only align with the broader principles of BFO but also address their unique contextual requirements effectively.
Echoing Dr. Smith's sentiment, "every good ontology contains a good taxonomy," it's important to recognize that the hierarchical "is-a" relationships, fundamental to taxonomies, form the backbone of a controlled vocabulary within these ontologies. However, it's crucial to note that these taxonomic structures, while essential, do not yet possess a fully developed set of logical attributes. This is where BFO's role becomes pivotal: it superimposes a more sophisticated logical layer over these taxonomic frameworks. This additional layer enhances the ontologies, moving beyond mere classification to encompass a richer, more structured representation of knowledge.
In essence, while the taxonomic "is-a" structures provide a necessary foundational vocabulary, BFO's contribution lies in embedding these within a broader logical context, thereby elevating the utility and applicability of the ontologies derived from it.
@@AshleighFaith You are corret - not all of the ontologies associated and or derived from BFO Upper Ontology and findable via the OBO Fondary are any good or more than Taxonomy.
Thanks for the video.
Glad it was helpful @muskduh!
What is the "ethnic insurance" that Mike was talking about? I'm guessing it was a glitch in the captioning, but I can't work out what it should have been
Definitely a glitch. The topic discussed here was about defining data. I don’t do the captions. I think those are auto generated from UA-cam. Can you provide a timestamp where you hear it? Maybe I can help figure out what he said.
@@AshleighFaith In the transcript it's at 5:34 and 6:15
Having now hunted around US banking regulations, I suspect he was saying "FDIC insurance"
Ohhhhh he is saying FDIC but he says it as a word and not an acronym. Hope that helps!
Yep! That’s what he is saying. That’s the most common insurance for US banks