The April 2003 Working Meeting was held at the New York City Union League Club following the first (very successful) XML for Market Data Conference. The meeting was well attended and active discussion loosely followed the outline of the Agenda (below). Proposed positions on major topics were sketched (as discussed below - especially the Release Strategy and Next Steps). The "hot topics" emerging from this meeting are Vocabulary Review, MDDL Query Language, and a Messaging Specification particularly in how they relate to adoption (implementation) of the specification and expansion of the content model.

The overriding theme of the meeting - and of the conference - was no longer about "if MDDL will be adopted" but more about "how MDDL will be implemented" and how that will reflect on the specification and support needs. There are several mitigating requirements for widespread adoption and the organization is focusing on addressing these needs directly. However, as we have stated before, the priorities are LARGELY influenced by the needs of members with REAL APPLICATIONS.

The development, and completeness, of the specification is guided by members. Specifically, there are four major ways in which you may help:

• Which comes next - mddlQuery or Corporate Actions? - the question is not if but when... Please eMail your opinion to James Hartley. A query/response mechanism (aka mddlQuery) is necessary for completeness of the specification - and many realworld applications - thus enablling applications (consumers) to request data of the provider. However, the content of MDDL is not complete until Corporate Actions - those events that alter reference data or trading parameters of an instrument - are contained within MDDL. There are two upcoming release dates: June 2003 and August 2003. Which enhancement should go in which release? Please guide us!



• Vocabulary Review must be completed - a condition of migrating to a "final" release of any version of MDDL requires the vocabulary be reviewed by industry experts (that would be you). A new "Vocabulary Review Committee" is being formed to ensure the terms and definitions are properly represented within MDDL. If you would like to help, please eMail your specific interests (asset class or capability) to James Hartley. This committee will then meet regularly to review the MDDL glossary - from a content point of view. Take a look at the Vocabulary Review Project Page for an understanding of the process.



• MDDL Query Language - the request mechanism for MDDL data. Up to now, MDDL has been primarily concerned with delivering market data but it was always assumed we would need to address the request side of things - the time is now! Please eMail James Hartley your needs or requirements for such a capability, or if you would like to participate in the definition of this new XML document format. The status of this effort will be maintained on the MDDL Query Language Project Page



• MDDL Messaging Specification - the way MDDL documents are communicated. As we add the query capability to MDDL, it becomes evident that there must be a standard way for a consumer to send a request to a provider and for the provider to respond with the requested data. Please eMail James Hartley if you would like to participate in this aspect of the MDDL specification. Initially, we will focus on Web Services but this activity will expand to cover Realtime Streaming when appropriate. This project is discussed in more detail on the Messaging Specification Project Page

As dicussed in London on 19 March 2003 (see meeting minutes), the release strategy was clarified. Starting with MDDL 2.1-beta, the following guidelines define each release:

• beta - The "beta" release, for a defined set of content or capabiltiies, will be made available as soon as terms, definitions, and relationships relevant to the release have been collected, organized, and converted into MDDL syntax. This concludes the "intellectual exercise" of incorporating all available content into the "angle brackets" of MDDL. At this point, two separate exercises will begin: a) mapping the REAL content (as provided by a participating member) into the new format, and b) reviewing the terms, definitions, and relationships by interested members and experts.



• draft - The "draft" release is delivered once sufficient REAL content has been exhibited in the latest MDDL release. Such a release ensures that at least one (and hopefully more) member, as well as the editors, are confident that the release correctly conveys the meaning of the data correctly.



• final - A release is distributed as "final" ONLY when the terms, definitions, and relationships of the release have been reviewed by all interested parties (usually done with frequent teleconferences). Likewise, the "draft" release will have been reviewed by MORE THAN ONE member for applicability to their data.

Because of the validation requirement, it is possible for multiple releases to be in "beta" or "draft" form before they are converted to "final". It is recommend that only the "final" releases be considered for implementation due to the fluid nature of the immature releases. However, if a release is in "beta" or "draft" form and it contains content that interests you, contact us to participate in the process of converting it to "draft" or "final". If the vocabulary is you major interest, look at the Vocabulary Review Project Page.

Each release of each version of MDDL (using MDDL 2.1-beta as the baseline) will include detailed release notes identifying the changes from previous releases and interpretation of new features. This ongoing documentation will then provide the basis for an MDDL "how to" guide including examples and "FAQ's" (Frequently Asked Questions). As well, the form of each release may be adjusted to meet requests or needs from members.

Special Note for MDDL 2.0: The aggressive timeline of MDDL 2.1, and the realization that MDDL 2.0 changed significantly without following these guidelines, necessitates skipping production of MDDL 2.0-final. MDDL 2.1-beta contains all of the content of MDDL 2.0-draft and will be produced under the above guidelines.

Although many of the members who are implementing MDDL, or are contributing to its development, have opted to remain anonymous, two members stand out as publically announcing they are developing MDDL-based products. The London Stock Exchange is expanding its SEDOL Masterfile capability and have announced they will use MDDL as the format of choice for distributing this information in XML. Most recently (at the XML for Market Data Conference), FT Interactive Data Corporation has indicated that it is developing an MDDL-based feed at the request of its clients for XML formatted content. The changes to MDDL are driven by member's requirements to provide these real applications - MDDL will continue to focus on these needs.

Several (large) members have indicated their desire to develop MDDL implementations but they have also identified limitations to MDDL that must be addressed before implementation can be ensured. Likewise, those that are currently implementing MDDL have echoed the need. Some of these items have been noted before:

• Corporate Actions and Events - Consistent with the overriding theme of the applicability of MDDL to reference data, corporate actions and events are necessary for a thorough implementation of MDDL for any reference data application. Active members will be solicited for their evaluation of the relative importance of this new content as compared to other requirements. It is likely that Corporate Actions and Events will be give a high priority but the realities of the complexity of this area suggest that it may not be completed until MDDL 2.3 due in August 2003.



• MDDL Query Format - To complete the specification it is necessary to provide a means by which a query for MDDL content can be formatted. MDDL has so far addressed the "response" end (or the "broadcast" capability). However, most reference data applications would tend to receive MDDL content only after a request has been issued. During the working meeting, some specifics were discussed and it is likely that a new mddlQuery specification will be developed. This activity is expected to be a hot topic for the June timeframe BUT will be developed and released independently of the MDDL specification. However, it is hoped that relevant modifications to the MDDL specification (to support responses to queries) could be made in MDDL 2.2 due in June 2003.



• Messaging Standards (primarily Web Services) - It has become apparent that the adoption of MDDL would be greatly facilitated by the incorporation of a messaging standard into the specification. To date, MDDL has focused on the data payload rather than infrastucture or messaging. With this new effort, the mechanism by which MDDL query documents (see above) and resulting responses are delivered will be addressed as part of the specification. While the details require some discussion amongst interested parties, primary focus will be on developing a Web Services Description Language (WSDL - see the W3C Web Services Home Page) to standardize a Web Service interface for requesting MDDL content. Additionally, similar specifications would be developed for realtime messaging for exchanging MDDL and mddlQuery documents.



• Pricing for More Asset Classes - As one of the primary focus applications of MDDL, the pricing fields need to be added for all existing domains. The short-term goal is to include all pricing information for all asset classes for which setup information is defined in MDDL 2.1. It is not clear if this should be completed for MDDL 2.2 in June 2003 or can wait until MDDL 2.3 in August 2003. Likely, some pricing will be completed in each release.



• Normalization and Processing Toolkit - Individual implementors of MDDL applications spend a signficant amount of time understanding the specification and developing tools around it. A normalized toolkit has been requested to help construct and validate MDDL documents. This is a natural extension of a standard and as such should be created to support the MDDL releases for this year. More discussion is required on the exact nature of this toolkit and the timeline is dependent on those conversations.



• More Documentation and Examples - As with a toolkit, individuals who are implementing MDDL feeds and processing systems require more detailed documentation and more complete examples to guide them in using the specification. The amount of effort devoted to providing documentation must be balanced against the value of having a toolkit for real implementations. Two kinds of documentation were identified - more complete web-based tools to understand the terms and definitions as well as a "how-to" document on implementing various industry (or "business") financial instrument concepts within MDDL. The former will be addressed with improvements to the rendering of the data model. The latter will be developed, hopefully as a collaborative effort, as online documentation. Additionally, more complete "release notes" and visibility into the MDDL development cycle and upcoming releases has been requested.



• Validation of TDRs - As described above in the release strategy, the terms, definitions, and relationships that are the vocabulary aspect of the MDDL specification must be validated by a wider audience. A small working group will be formed to systematically review the MDDL glossary for each release looking for completeness and inconsistency.

The MDDL development and release schedule will be updated shortly incorporating the outcome of this working meeting. See the "SCHEDULE" link at the left.

The topic of conformity to the specification was also discussed (as in London). Many members consider this a useful capability but its exact form is unclear - Is an automated tool possible (see above) for what would seem to be a manual process? For now, it seems that a validation (normalization and processing) tool is necessary regardless of the conformance process. Once the tool is available it will be necessary to readdress this topic.

Interest in MDDL is increasingly high - and as a result requirements are more detailed and relevant to actual implementations. The next six months will see MDDL focusing on filling out existing content for pricing and reference data, adding corporate actions, and addressing messaging standards as part of the specification. Members will be asked to participate in smaller working groups focused at clarifying the requirements and validating the specification.

For more information, or to discuss current activities or future participation, please contact James Hartley or any FISD Staff Member.

Meeting Time: 29 April 2003, 1:00-4:00 p.m.
Location: The Union League Club, 38 East 37. Street, New York City
Dial-in: +1 703.925.2410, Passcode: 6484677#

Status of Major Completed Items:

• MDDL 2.0-draft
• MDDL 2.1-beta
• Controlled Vocabularies
• Glossary

Description of the Process:

• Consolidation of Terms, Definitions, and Relationships
• Addressing Real Needs and Implementations
• Realities of Available Content

Moving Forward:

• The Release Cycle
• The Review Cycle
• The Interest Map
• The Development Cycle

MDDL 2.2 (June 2003) and Beyond:

• Content Mapping
• Technical Requirements: Query/Response
• Validation Tool
• Messaging Standards?

Conformance and Compliance:

• From a "Provider's" Viewpoint
• To a "Consumer's" Requirements
• Open Discussion on the Issue