Open Insurance Data Standard White Paper Work Group - 2/3/25
- Nathan Southern
Attendees
Peter Antley
Jeff Braswell
Rob Clark
Andy Mielke
Lanaya Nelson
Jennifer Tornquiest
Greg Williams
Logistics
Peter Antley (PA) read the LF Antitrust Statement and welcomed attendees.
Recap on Action Items from 1/27/25 Meeting
Peter Antley (PA) kicked things off by recapping on the action items from last week - the updates are in red font.
Peter Antley - review ‘The Data Challenge - U.S. Property & Casualty Industry' and Werner Kruck’s document from January 16th to help flesh out the white paper, and make sure the white paper content is in sync with it. All three statements should be aligned.
Peter still needs to make additional progress on this. There is nothing significant to report at this time. (See carryover action items below).
Peter Antley - Make sure the term “royalty-free” is present throughout the paper per Cory’s above specifications (i.e., free to use by anyone at any time, not the property of any one organization - which will prevent someone owning the data highway).
This is mentioned throughout the paper, but Peter would like to discuss this more with the group to get feedback and weigh-in - from Sean, Ken and others - about how and where the term is used in the paper.
Peter Antley - Email latest white paper draft to everyone before the call on Thu. 1/30.
This is done.
Cory Isaacson - Review the white paper document and provide critical feedback - reporting back in Thursday’s OIDS group would be ideal if that is doable.
Discussion
The discussion, as led by PA, started on this last point regarding Cory’s suggestion.
PA shared his screen and pulled up the latest incarnation of the white paper, and made the following points:
Two titles, per white paper discussion: a more human readable title on top and a more SEO-oriented title on the bottom. Each one good/useful for a different reason. Second title is better suited for search engines. For time being both titles will be left as is.
The phrasing in the title changed from ‘royalty-free’ to ‘free’ 2x.
A comment on the abstract: it should include a reference to this being a non-profit, so rent-seeking behavior won’t be allowed to take over.
Cory Isaacson (CI) noted that although the white paper now has diagrams, we aren’t specifically addressing the diagrams that we made in the context of the paper. More specifically, Cory suggested putting the pictures in-line.
Right now, section 1 talks about problems, section 2 talks about how we’re producing the value.
The problem statement still needs to be reorganized to correspond to the big problems:
Lack of interoperability - diagram pairs with this (pair the one that is most appropriate). If we don’t show pain, no one will pay attention to it.
Point to prior proprietary data standards and how sticky and problematic those were.
Overall point: if someone owns the commercial data exchange highway, that is toxic for the industry. Proprietary data standards are harmful to the industry. We don’t want anyone owning the data standards or exchange.
Proprietary data standards do not exist (as a rule) for the purpose of helping carriers. These standards attempt to have a monopoly - they can charge whatever they like; whereas open standards are free to use and adopt.
Re: Sections 3.1-3.2 - and section 3 as a whole
Looking to Cloverleaf for content on core model and extensibility. (See action items below). Per Jeff - not necessary to get into any great detail here. Just emphasize that there is a core model, and it emphasizes common characteristics, and it is possible to extend that. (Jeff). Remember: this is not a technical document, just a description of what we’re after and what is involved. Baseline attributes plus extension options per Rob Clark.
Consider schema evolution - you can add schema extensions without breaking the core (not necessary to put this into the white paper, but just for our Peter’s own reference).
The standard itself should have the capacity to involve.
Re: Section 4- Sean can come next Monday to talk about his section.
Ken has contributed to a section on Looking Forward; the group will go over this in the next meting on 2/10
Peter has written the conclusion and is regularly keeping it up to date.
New Action Items 2/4
Peter Antley -
Review ‘The Data Challenge - U.S. Property & Casualty Industry' and Werner Kruck’s document from January 16th to help flesh out the white paper, and make sure the white paper content is in sync with it. All three statements should be aligned.
Change ‘royalty-free’ to ‘free and open’ throughout the white paper -scale this out across the whole paper. ‘Standards are free and open.’ ‘Adopting free and open standards in comparison to proprietary formats.’
Per comment on abstract: work non-profit reference/no rent seeking behavior statement into the paper
Per Cory’s request, add images in-line with the text that correspond to the text.
Rewrite the problem statement to emphasize the big pain points even more strongly, such as the lack of interoperability in the current state. Also: high cost, vendor lock-in, etc. Overall point: if someone owns the commercial data exchange highway, that is toxic for the industry. Proprietary data standards are harmful to the industry. We don’t want anyone owning the data standards or exchange. Hammer it home.
Should stress how we’re doing it, why it’s different than what came before, and why its going to work now.
Start with strategy - 2-3 sentences. once this is in place, the rest of the white paper will flow from it.
Next week work on Integrating Werner’s copy into the paper.
Rob Clark -
Get materials to Peter for section 3 on Core Model and Extensibility, to interpolate into white paper.
Lanaya
Invite Sean for Mon. 2/10 to talk to the group about his contributions to the paper.
