Migrate CodeList Models to Rune DSL

[dschwartznyc]

@hugohills @SimonCockx @davidalk @manel-martos @plamen-neykov

Would it make sense to migrate to the codelist definitions that are part of CDM to the Rune DSL?

https://github.com/finos/common-domain-model/blob/master/rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/base-staticdata-codelist-type.rosetta
https://github.com/finos/common-domain-model/blob/master/rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/base-staticdata-codelist-func.rosetta

Doing so would allow models in addition to CDM to make use of externally defined data and allow Rune DSL standardization of a serialization format that includes clarification when an instance is serialized of which versions of a codelist have been used.

Migration could use a mechanism similar to adding the built in basicTypes and annotations such as is used in the Python generator:

        resources.add(resourceSet.getResource(builtins.basicTypesURI, true));
        resources.add(resourceSet.getResource(builtins.annotationsURI, true));

The FpML references in the existing models which do not seem to be FpML specific would need to be renamed to something more generic.

[SimonCockx]

Hi @dschwartznyc

Given that the Rune DSL currently does not ship any domain specific types or functions such as FpML codelists - it only ships generic support for builtin types and annotations, the two files you mentioned - I think these codelist definitions belong in an actual Rune model, not in the DSL itself. Adding them here would I think open a door to a variety of future discussions on whether a certain codelist belongs in the DSL or outside of it.

Whether the model it lives in should be the CDM or another separate upstream model for reuse, I think is a discussion outside the scope of the DSL.

[dschwartznyc]

@SimonCockx As for upstream, would it make sense to consider including in the DSL if the ability to ingest external data on an abstract basis? Models could then make avail of the capability for their domain specific requirements.