This is a weekly series for The Regulatory Reporting Data Model Working Group. The RRDMWG is a collaborative group of insurers, regulators and other insurance industry innovators dedicated to the development of data models that will support regulatory reporting through an openIDL node. The data models to be developed will reflect a greater synchronization of data for insurer statistical and financial data and a consistent methodology that insurers and regulators can leverage to modernize the data reporting environment. The models developed will be reported to the Regulatory Reporting Steering Committee for approval for publication as an open-source data model.

openIDL Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 989 0880 4279
Passcode: 740215

One tap mobile
+16699006833,,98908804279# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,98908804279# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
        +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        888 788 0099 US Toll-free
        877 853 5247 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 989 0880 4279
Find your local number:



  • Define Charter
  • Identify key stakeholders 
  • Review Automobile Statistical Data Model 
  • Review Data Dictionary 

Discussion items

30minReview CharterRuturaj Waghmode
  • Defined Charter below
15minAutomobile Statistical Data Model OverviewPeter Antley
15minWalk through Data Dictionary DraftPeter Antley
next meetingDefine key stakeholdersGroup


RRWG_2021-10-29 Meeting.mp4

Meeting Minutes

Action items

  •     Review Charter:       

    • Research and assess relevant industry reference regulatory reporting

                data models and data standards

    • Recommend industry reference data models and data standards that may be referred or incorporated into regulatory reporting data models
    • Review, refine and document regulatory reporting data models
    • Recommend data models to openIDL Steering Committees for approval
    • Review requests for, analyze, design and document updates to regulatory reporting data models
    • Data models discussed, created & documented are published as open source
    • Identify Actors and their perspectives/views that are applicable for a given data model
  • Susan to share her gap analysis (NAIC vs auto data model)
  • Peter to add acceptable values (enumeration lists) and rules

1 Comment

  1. Anonymous

    Linux Foundation


    Regulatory Reporting Data Model Working Group

    2021 October 29 Meeting Minutes


    Meeting Minutes

    1. Antitrust policy reviewed
    2. Review Charter
      1. Goal: Set the context of these meetings, working group
      2. Reviewed bullets of the charter proposal
        1. Truman: include what it looks like to our stakeholders. Who are the actors, for whom is this a standard?
        2. Brian: Bias from data perspective, what it means to each viewer
    • Ken: That’s a data architecture. It’s more than one model, a connection over the TSC
    1. Ruturaj: Proposed additional point to the charter: Identify perspectives/views that are applicable for a given data model
    2. Brian: suggest moving "regulatory reporting" ahead of data model in 1st bullet. as it shows in 2nd bullet.
    3. Robin: Parentheses around the standards? Is the model supporting the open standard or is it supporting the open standard?
    • Truman: Purpose of the model: What is the data model that allows interaction between two models? Enterprise Model -> openIDL Model -> Regulatory Model. At rest, at query, at visualization
    • Ruturaj proposes additional language: Data models discussed, created & documented are published as open source (in the context of openIDL membership)
    1. Truman asks about specification for defining assets, assertions, etc.
    2. Robin questions openSource for view but not for use.
    3. Brian: We want to create a pipe and let people run through it but there might be a paywall for some aspects
    • Truman: Yes, for example connecting to the openIDL “pipe” might cost money
    • Dale: Is this charter for openIDL or for the data model?
    • Robin: Technical Steering Committee would have to bless
    1. Truman: Building data logical structures. From RRDMWG to TSC to openIDL board
    1. Agreed to post as draft and let it sit for a week, then have this committee and then regulatory committee approve it.
    2. Define key stakeholders
      1. Truman: we need to decide the voters, who has right to vote
    3. Automobile Statistical Data Model Overview
      1. Peter Antley showed the Auto Coverage Data Model
        1. Table by table
        2. Nine tables: line of business, policy, subline, transaction, transaction code, state, coverage, claim detail, premium detail
    • State table: Also have territories that need addition
    1. Ruturaj: This data model is the extraction pattern data model for getting data needed for regulatory reporting
    1. Data Dictionary
      1. Field, table, attribute, definition
    2. Q&A
      1. Dale: This is just the auto data report model?
      2. Also, where is carrier dimension?
        1. We plan to add a carrier table in, probably on the policy
    • Susan: Compared to list of NAIC required codes. She has the list and has started a compare.
      1. Territory but may not get distinct to zip code.
      2. Territory, state, zip are all required NAIC codes.
      3. Dale: Address is PII and Travelers does not want to disclose
      4. Susan showed her analysis of NAIC vs openIDL auto – PL Auto -AAIS v NAIC.xlsx
        1. Dale: On claim detail, do we want to add claim number? Agreed
      5. Walk through Data Dictionary Draft
        1. Ruturaj: What is the feedback on the data dictionary?
        2. Susan: What is PK, FK? Primary key, foreign key. Can add footnote
        3. Dale: What are the acceptable values? Where do we show that?
          1. Ruturaj: That is the enumeration list. That is to be done. Also likely to add some rules, too.

    Action Items

    • Susan to share her gap analysis (NAIC vs auto data model)
    • Peter to add acceptable values (enumeration lists) and rules