Draft of xerberus feed schema

[Christian-MK]

Outstanding schema questions

General

• What is this feed type? Schema.org does not have a risk equivalent for currencies.
  • Currently experimenting with Review & Rating
• The initial feed will be serviced by a single endpoint (centralized), should drafts take this into account or prepare for multiple (decentralized)?
  • Currently split feed into centralized-review & decentralized-review (similar to CER)

Fact-statement

      "identifier": "urn:", // what would we be identifying here? their api?
      "dateCreated": "2024-08-28T16:20:14Z", // what considerations are there re what is being created/published and when?
      "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", // applicable?

Fact-statement-datum

Messsage

Validation

[ross-spencer]

Rating seems close at first glance, their docs switch to rating in their use of language as well:

Rating	Explanation
AAA - A	Investment Grade
BBB - B	Speculative
CCC - C	Highly Speculative
D	Junk

Gives us the opportunities to add further validation, e.g. will only ever be one of ["AAA", "AA", "A", "BBB", "BB", "B", "CCC", "CC", "C", "D"],

NB. surprised there isn't a project or enterprise risk-management category in schema.org (might not help us, but surprised nonetheless!)

[Christian-MK]

Revisiting and wondering if we should merge these changes or continue to wait to hear from Simon. What's your opinion @ross-spencer ?

[ross-spencer]

Revisiting and wondering if we should merge these changes or continue to wait to hear from Simon. What's your opinion @ross-spencer ?

Great question.

My instinct is that we do publish something in the documentation about this. Especially as it provides (as previously mentioned)

• An actual use-case beyond simple currency exchange.
• The first of potentially others.

In that regard, it means we have something to point to.

I have updated the PR this morning to bring it up to date with the current docs website and add category files.

I am not sure what other changes may be needed but perhaps a brief introduction, e.g.

And similarly for CER:

Otherwise, it looks like most of the additional content is in the fact-statement? -- I would perhaps shorten this effort a little bit, and just make it an outline of the notes required to start to flesh things out. Then maybe for the other schema examples, just delete the text/json and leave a placeholder to note that it is still to be developed?

Unless you feel like you have the bandwidth to continue drafting those?

Either way, I feel it a good thing to have here and to reference in future, e.g. even in future Catalyst proposals.