• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.



Page history last edited by Richard Percy 13 years, 7 months ago

Open Source ICA Model


This is the wiki for the GIRO working party. We're hoping to build a simple open source tool that can be used for simple ICA modelling.



Getting the software and using it


About the software and prerequisites

Getting the software

Setting up the software

Running the software



Minutes of past meetings, and details of the Next Meeting


Terms of reference


Build a simple, extensible open source model for risk based capital, using best practice development methodologies.

This model will be suitable for use by other working parties, students, and academics, as well as by actuaries interested in exploring aspects of risk-based capital. At least initially, it will not be suitable for use in calculating ICAs.


Project outline


Stuff to do



We're going to need to do the following:



We want to document all these stages, to provide an example of good practice.


Wiki help


These are some links that will help you get up to speed with wiki editing




Comments (2)

Anonymous said

at 9:14 am on Oct 4, 2006

I moved the review of the CAS tool into the main project scope as in my view it is a step rather than an objective. In view of the discussion we had at Giro I moved it to after we had decided what the platform would be. (Louise mentioned that we didn't want to prejudice our own thought process with what they had produced, but would be looking at it)

Anonymous said

at 9:14 am on Oct 6, 2006

I've mixed feelings. Firstly Im keen to develop an ICA model from scratch! Second Im trying to listen to my own advice and consider Prior Art first. I do agree that we dont want to be constrained by them; but equally feel that if they have created something we should build on it rather than start again (in good open source fashion). Perhaps doing a specification in a vacuum first is a good idea - then we can compare (which I think is what you/Louise) are suggesting.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.