Enhancement Request

Use Case:

At FactSet we have an FDS_TYPE property that we use with contexts to further refine the type of the context. We use this field to determine whether to run extra resolutions on the context and add more properties to the id field. For instrument contexts some examples would include publicCompany, privateCompany, commodity, etf, mutualFund, future, option. We currently place this property inside id, but are wondering if that is the best place to put it. Would it make sense to have an optional top level classification field? Being an object itself with any number of sub properties. Also just want to present the use case and ask if others do anything like this or see value in it.

EDIT: examples have been updated to reflect classification being an object rather than a string following feedback.
EDIT 2: examples have been updated to use classification.name rather than classification.fdc3

Contexts

Instrument

Details

Example

const instrument = {
    type: 'fdc3.instrument',
    name: 'Fidelity 500 Index Fund',
    id: {
        ticker: 'FXAIX',
        CUSIP: '315911750',
        ISIN: 'US3159117502',
        SEDOL: 'B4VF818'
    },
    //classification: 'mutualFund',
    classification: {
        //fdc3: 'mutualFund',
        name: 'mutualFund',
        FDS_TYPE: 'mutualFund'
    }
}

Example 2

const instrument = {
    type: "fdc3.instrument",
    name: "Microsoft",
    id: {
        ticker: "MSFT",
        RIC: "MSFT.OQ",
        ISIN: "US5949181045"
    },
    market: {
        MIC: "XNAS"
    },
    classification: {
        //fdc3: "publicCompany",
        name: "publicCompany",
        XYZ: "company",
        CDM: "equity"
    }
}

Additional Information

• Conceptually this is similar to supporting more granular types for contexts, but it wouldn't make sense to actually split off more types and fracture the listener ecosystem.
• If others feel the best place to put this info is in the existing id field then we can continue doing that.