Advertisement

An Active Conceptual Model for Fixed Income Securities Analysis for Multiple Financial Institutions

  • Allen Moulton
  • Stéphane Bressan
  • Stuart E. Madnick
  • Michael D. Siegel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1507)

Abstract

The practical implementation and use of a mediator for fixed income securities analysis demonstrated the potential for extending the application of conceptual modeling from the system design stage to providing query access to both data and computational resources. The mediator product was designed as a general interpretive engine specialized and controlled by the declarative knowledge from the conceptual model. The fixed income conceptual model included securities ranging in complexity from Treasury bills to collateralized mortgage obligations, as well as standard and proprietary analytic methodologies and calculations. All information, whether computed or retrieved from databases, was offered to clients in the form of attributes of conceptual entities. Client preference entities and attributes were used to control selection among conceptually interchangeable source data and procedural components. Experience from this implementation provides insight into the requirements for successful application of a conceptual model in mediating among heterogeneous, autonomous users and information resources.

Keywords

Conceptual Model Cash Flow Dependency Graph Semantic Type Declarative Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wiederhold, G.: Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer, 38–49 (March 1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiederhold, G.: Mediation in information systems. ACM Comp. Surveys 27(2), 265–267 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madnick, S.: Are we moving toward an information superhighway or a Tower of Babel? The challenge of large-scale semantic heterogeneity. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 2–8 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Securities Industry Association. New York, http://www.sia.com
  5. 5.
    Public Securities Association. New York, http://www.psa.com
  6. 6.
    Fabozzi, F. (ed.): The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities, 3rd edn., Irwin, Homewood, Illinois (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goh, C.: Representing and reasoning about semantic conflicts in heterogeneous information systems. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goh, C., Bressan, S., Madnick, S., Siegel, M.: Context interchange: new features and formalism for the intelligent integration of information. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper #3941 (February 1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel, M., Madnick, S.: A metadata approach to resolving semantic conflicts. In: Proc. 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 133–145 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.: Conceptual Database Design. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teorey, T.: Database Modeling and Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markowitz, V., Shoshani, A.: Abbreviate query interpretation in entity-relationship oriented databases. In: Proc. 8th Int’l. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parent, C., Rolin, H., Yétongnon, K., Spaccapietra, S.: An ER calculus for the entityrelationship complex model. In: Proc. 8th Int’l. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arens, Y., Knobloch, C.: Planning and reformulating queries for semantically-modeled multidatabase. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levy, A., Rajaraman, A., Ordille, J.: Query answering algorithms for information agents. In: Proc. 13th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 40–47 (August 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genesereth, M., Keller, A., Duschka, O.: Infomaster: an information integration system. In: Proc. 1997 ACM SIGMOD Conference, pp. 539–542 (May 1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papakonstantinou, Y., Gupta, A., Haas, L.: Capabilities-based query rewriting in mediator systems. In: Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Paralled and Distributed Information Systems (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia-Molina, H.: The TSIMMIS approach to mediation: data models and languages. In: Proc. Conf. on Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woelk, D., Cannata, P., Huhns, M., Shen, W., Tomlinson, C.: Using Carnot for enterprise information integration. In: Second International Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, pp. 133–136 (January 1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benaroch, M.: Toward the notion of a knowledge repository for financial risk management. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 9(1), 161–167 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bridge Info. Systems, EJV Partners Financial Glossary, http://bondchannel.bridge.com/html/EJVGlossary.html
  22. 22.
    Standard & Poors CUSIP Service Bureau, http://www.cusip.com
  23. 23.
    Rational Software Corp., http://www.rational.com/uml/index.shtml
  24. 24.
    Cattell, R. (ed.): The object database standard: ODMG-93. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Moulton
    • 1
  • Stéphane Bressan
    • 1
  • Stuart E. Madnick
    • 1
  • Michael D. Siegel
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologySloan School of ManagementCambridge

Personalised recommendations