Digitised vs Digitalised vs Understandable by Machine

The document Key Trade Documents and Data Elements (page 6) provides this explanation of the difference between "digitisation" and "digitalisation":

  • Digitisation involves converting data from an analogue to digital format (e.g. taking a paper report and converting it to a pdf). 
  • Digitalisation, on the other hand, is about transforming entire processes to be digital. It is about using technology to change the way that business-as-usual is conducted.
Personally, I don't think that the above explanation goes far enough.  Details are left out.  I tried to explain this idea also with my notion of financial report levels which were inspired by the True Car breakdown of autonomous vehicles into levels which are explained in detail in this video I created, Financial Report Levels.  Here is a summary of those levels: (maturity levels)

  • Level 0 (Provide information physically): Not machine readable. An example of Level 0 is a clay tablet, papyrus, or paper as the report medium.
  • Level 1 (Provide information digitally): Machine readable, nonstandard, structured for presentation. PDF, HTML, XHTML, and other forms of e-paper are examples of Level 1.
  • Level 2 (Provide information digitally, structured for meaning): Machine readable, nonstandard, structured for meaning, no taxonomy (a.k.a. dictionary), no rules, no report model. An XBRL-based report without an XBRL taxonomy schema, without XBRL relations and resources, and without XBRL Formulas is an example of Level 2.
  • Level 3 (Standard syntax for structure): Machine readable, global standard syntax, structured for meaning, with taxonomy (a.k.a. dictionary), incomplete rules, incomplete high-level report model. An XBRL-based report with a XBRL taxonomy schema, with XBRL relations and resources, but without XBRL Formulas is an example of Level 3. (Another dimension here would be to provide MULTIPLE different standard syntax and map between those syntax you can transfer bidirectionally between the different standard syntax alternatives)
  • Level 4 (Common dictionary of terms): Machine readable, global standard syntax, structured for meaning, with taxonomy (a.k.a. dictionary), complete set of rules provided, incomplete high-level report model. An XBRL-based report with a XBRL taxonomy schema, with XBRL relations and resources, and with XBRL Formulas that completely describes the report is an example of Level 4.
  • Level 5 (Complete set of logical statements): Machine readable, global standard syntax, structured for meaning, with taxonomy (a.k.a. dictionary), complete set of rules provided, complete global standard high-level report model, yields PROVEN properly functioning system and UNDERSTANDABLE report information. An XBRL-based report with all the characteristics of Level 4, plus consistency cross checks, type-subtype relations, consistent and logical modeling of XBRL presentation relations, information that describes the correct representation of every disclosure within the report, and a reporting checklist that describes all required disclosures is an example Level 5.
  • Level 6 (Trust report logic not manipulated): All of Level 5 PLUS blockchain-anchored XBRL to increase trust. An XBRL-based report with all the characteristics of Level 5, plus information within a digital distributed ledger that assures no one has tampered with the report is an example of Level 6.
  • Level 7 (Trust transaction provenance): All of Level 6 PLUS blockchain-anchored accounting transactions and events. An XBRL-based report with all the characteristics of Level 6, plus information that indicates that assures no one has tampered with transactions is an example of Level 7.
This graphic depicts the information above:


The point here is that understanding the level of representation of something helps you understand the capabilities that are achievable. To have a precise discussion about this the details matter.  The capability of a machine to perform work is carefully created.

Craft matters!

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