General Purpose Financial Reporting Support for XBRL

“Paper is just an object that information has been sprayed onto in the past.” Ted Nelson

Think about something.  What if someone desired to use XBRL-based reporting but they are not mandated to report to some regulator like the SEC, FDIC, or ESMA; then what "profile" of XBRL would they use? What if there was a "general profile" for working with XBRL that could, say, be used internally within a business for consolidation, internally for cost accounting, for creating benchmarking systems, for sharing information with peer organizations, and other such use cases.

Well, the Seattle Method is such an application profile for general XBRL-based reporting that does not need to meet some arbitrary regulator reporting regime.  While the Seattle Method cannot be called an industry de facto standard (yet); the Seattle Method inspired the creation of the Standard Business Report Model (SBRM) by OMG.  The Standard Business Report Model is a logical conceptualization of a business report that is independent of any technical syntax.

In the early days of XBRL-based reporting, software vendors would commonly build support for only one specific XBRL taxonomy and for reporting to one specific regulator.  Now that there are numerous regulators making use of XBRL, software vendors are realizing that that is not the best idea.  Today, software that only supported XBRL-based reporting to the SEC has been modified to also enable XBRL-based reporting using the ESEF to ESMA.

Perhaps it is appropriate that individual regulators to sometimes create their own proprietary application profile of XBRL; it is always necessary?  What if there was one global standard universal digital financial reporting framework?  A universal general purpose reporting framework and each regulator creating their own specific application profile are not mutually exclusive.

Here are a handful (my GOLDEN VERSIONS) of XBRL-based reporting schemes that I have created, all are compliant to the Seattle Method, and all should be supported (could be supported) by XBRL-based reporting software applications: (form more information see START HERE)

  1. Accounting Equation
  2. SFAC 6
  3. SFAC 8
  4. Common Elements of Financial Report (Four Statement Model), Version 1
  5. Common Elements of Financial Report (Four Statement Model), Version 2
  6. Common Elements of Financial Report (Four Statement Model), Version 3
  7. Essence
  8. MINI Financial Reporting Scheme
  9. MINI Financial Reporting Scheme with Business Events and Classic Transactions
  10. PROOF Financial Reporting Scheme | Repository of Reports
  11. XASB Financial Reporting Scheme
  12. AASB 1060 Financial Reporting Scheme (Prototype)
  13. Not for Profit Financial Reporting Scheme in US (Prototype)
  14. School District Accounting Manual (SDAM), Washington, State (Prototype)
  15. Primary Financial Statements for IFRS (Prototype)
  16. Lipsum (Prototype)
Each of the XBRL-based taxonomies and XBRL instances provided within those prototypes is of ultra-high quality, heavily tested, guaranteed to be consistent with the XBRL technical specification, and follows the Seattle Method framework or "application profile".  Any off-the-shelf software application that says it supports XBRL will be able  to work with the XBRL taxonomies and XBRL instances for each of the 9 prototypes.  You can use the above XBRL taxonomies and XBRL instances as benchmarks to access software capabilities and functionality.  In addition, that off-the-shelf software should have no trouble with this conformance suite.

Here are four more complex examples; these are accounting workpapers, auditing working papers and schedules, and financial analysis models:

TESTING: You can use these IMPORT FILES and DOCUMENTATION for testing, benchmarking, reverse engineering, etc.

Each of the 9 prototypes above are supported by and heavily tested using the following XBRL software applications currently:
If any software wants their software tested to be sure if follows the spirit of the Seattle Method or wants to understand the OMG Standard Business Report Model (SBRM) better, please do not hesitate to contact me on LinkedIn or send me an email.


Additional resources:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Graph Hairball

Image
Knowledge graph system logic, the "things" and "relations between things" that  graph theory calls "vertices" (a.k.a. nodes, points, entities, things) and "edges" (a.k.a.  links, lines, relations, associations), looks like a big graph hairball as some people call it an example of which you can see here: Why?  This common view of a graph is because there has to be some "general view" of the information provided by the graph.  This is just like a general view of the information within a relational database is a table ; a set of ROWS and COLUMNS for exactly one table at a time. So what is interesting is that with a graph database the default view is everything in the graph of knowledge.  Whereas the default view of everything in a relational database is one table at a time. Further, it does not really matter whether the information that populates your knowledge graph comes from, say, CSV files, Excel, JSON, XBRL, RDF, PROLOG or whateve
Read more

PLATINUM Business Use Cases, Test Cases, Conformance Suite

Image
A brick wall is made of exactly two things: bricks, mortar. But a brick wall created by a master craftsman, or mason, and a brick wall created by a “weekend warrior” with no knowledge of masonry will be very different. Master craftsmen are created and that process takes time and effort. This blog post is a first prototype that brings several things together into one useful resource for business professionals.  It pulls together the human readable information of the Showcase of Reports   and the machine readable information of the Conformance Suite of XBRL-based Financial Reports Prepared using the Seattle Method .  Then, I want to incorporate the information found in these PLATINUM XBRL-based Financial Report Examples . The three resources can be useful and used independently; but they are even more useful when used together.  Business professionals really could not care a less about the technical details of getting some result that they want.  But technical professionals need to under
Read more