04 October 2002

Summary

Our thanks to all that participated in both MDDL working sessions - the turnout was tremendous! Over 40 individuals made it to the early morning sessions.

A general working meeting was held at the offices of Euronext Amsterdam on the mornings of 26 September (08:30-11:30) and 27 September (08:30-10:00). The overview presentation guided the conversation including details of proposed changes to MDDL (updated) including the planned direction for MDDL governance and operation now that James Hartley is a full-time staff member of FISD dedicated to MDDL. Of particular interest, are the liaison relationships MDDL and FISD have developed. A consensus on general directions for MDDL was reached by those present. Open discussion on MDDL barriers to adoption yielded some interesting insights. Finally, the Modification Requests were reviewed generating some comment on the vocabulary & specification.

During the overview and general report, a review of MDDL progress was presented including a plan for moving forward. The MDDL governance structure will be altered to have a single standing committee - The MDDL Steering Committee. The Committee will be comprised of 21 members: 7 vendors, 7 users, 3 exchanges, 3 technology/infrastructure companies, and James Hartley. The exact makeup of the committee is currently being determined. Working groups will be formulated as necessary with recommendations back to The Committee for incorporation into the specification or agenda.

Core to the future success of MDDL, FISD has hired James Hartley as a full-time employee dedicated to MDDL. James discussed the structure of his efforts:

• Vocabulary : The vocabulary is the real value behind MDDL and related efforts. The proper framework for interchange of data is a common understanding of the terms and the data exchanged. The focus for MDDL will continue to be guided by the membership desires for depth and breadth of the MDDL vocabulary.
• Liaison : Many related industry-wide efforts seek to define standards. FISD and MDDL are in the center of all of the (known) relevant organizations. See the liaison section below.
• Industry Model : A common understanding of how the industry processes market data and MDDL's role within that model is key to developing MDDL to serve the industry. MDDL will be enhanced by understanding how each member processes market data - and thus MDDL can be adapted for their needs.
• Specification : The technical specification of MDDL must be sound and consistent with the requirements levied on it. MDDL will continue to evolve to support member applications.
• Website & Communication : The website and electronic communication are our most valuable means for distributing information globally. Direct attention will be applied to the content of the MDDL.org website and participation in discussion groups.
• Application Support : As organizations develop MDDL-related applications, FISD will be there to understand the needs and ensure that MDDL supports them. Similarly, FISD staff can be enlisted to solve the specific needs of organizations.

Liaison

The need for liaison support with other XML and industry standards was echoed in the working meeting and in the FISD General Meeting. MDDL is currently involved with most, if not all, of the key organizations associated with our industry. This liaison table highlights the organizations that have been identified and their relationship to FISD and MDDL.

Of particular relevance are recent discussions with representatives of ISO 15022 Working Group 10. This group has provided FISD with the guidance necessary to get most of our vocabulary terms accepted into the standad. As more and more groups rally around a single vocabulary, MDDL (and FISD!) will be instrumental in helping clarify industry nomenclature though ISO 15022. Also, as ISO 15022 strives to clarify the ISO working relationships and make the standards more adaptive, it has been suggested that FISD/MDDL petition to be a liaison member to SC4 (that is ISO TC68/SC4) to be the industry representative for all terms within the market data segment of the financial industry.

A cross-industry cooperative has been defined to clarify the various specifications and standards as well as resolve potential overlap that is perceived to exist. Our intention is that MDDL be core in this effort. Although groups like this have convened before, this one - initiated by the BMA - includes the widest industry representation assembled for this topic yet: FISD (of course!) and various companies with employees who are representatives of FpML, FIX Protocol Limited, MISMO, SMPG, SIA T1, SWIFT, ANSI X9D, ISO, GSTPAg, RIXML, and (believe it or not) MORE...

Directions

One topic of discussion during the two-day meetings centered around future directions for the specification. There were several different groups who felt they needed specific capabilities before they could use MDDL effectively. The consensus on direction for MDDL, based on those present, fell into these basic categories (in no particular order):

• Fill out "equityDomain" - Whereas the "debtDomain" has been developed to include setup information for debt instruments, similar content within the equity domain is required. This would be in direct support of Security Master File setup and Straight Through Processing (STP).
• Construct "query" - A mechanism is needed whereby an MDDL document can be used to request specific data for a particular instrument.
• Finish "debtDomain" - While the setup information for debt instruments is mostly complete, it needs to be verified. Additionally, the rest of the fields for debt (including quote and analysis information) needs to be wrapped into the specification.
• Corporate Actions - Specifically with regards to STP and relevant efforts, proper definition and processing of corporate actions as events is a must.
• Examples, Examples, Examples! - MDDL is sufficiently complicated that many examples (and valid ones at that!) would be helpful to demonstrate the value of MDDL. Perhaps a full demo?

Barriers

Some time was spent openly discussing the barriers to adoption by all those present. In addition to input on the directions listed above, the following comments were offered:

• Breadth of Content - "MDDL does not currently cover all the asset classes which I require."
• Time to Market - "MDDL has not developed as quickly as I can do it internally."
• No Availability - "My data provider does not generate MDDL."

Vocabulary & Specification Details

Most items from the list of Modification Requests were reviewed but tabled for resolution via e-mail with the following specific discussion and actions (listed by item number from the document):

• 2001001-2001005,2001007,2002003-2002005: A vocabulary centric group of individuals familiar with the business aspects of each would need to discuss this. James to contact members via e-mail.
• 2001006,2001010,2001013-2001014,2001016-2001017,2002007: James to review with Tony Coates.
• 2001008: James to discuss with HEX directly.
• 2001009: James to discuss with Reuters directly.
• 2001011: Those present echoed the need for a "query" construct to facilitate interactive. This is considered one of the primary thrusts for MDDL moving forward.
• 2001012: An "update" may not be necessary. A review of the business model around MDDL should determine if this is valuable.
• 2001018: The basic problem of identifying various identifier schemes was discussed. No resolution was generated but the members were made aware of the issue. James and Tony coates to recommend a solution.
• 2002001: James will fix in next release.
• 2002002: A reference will be made in the documentation addressing this specific topic. Basically, a relative performance is defined by quoting the value, indicating the "duration" of the value, and a "valuation" of "percentage".
• 2002006: This is one of the primary thrusts for MDDL going forward.
• 2002008: James to pursue over the coming month.
• Others: Note: Tony Coates has some other issues that did not make this list. This will be incorporated into future mailings.