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

Getting Started with Auditchain Luca

Image
(Note that a newer, production version as opposed to only the development version , of Luca Suite is available) The Innovator's Dilemma points out that disruptive innovations often look like toys that are doing everything wrong. Auditchain Luca , which is part of the Auditchain Suite , is a unique approach to creating a knowledge graph .  To experience using Auditchain Luca, have a look at the Getting Started with Auditchain Luca instructions. Be sure to grab the Excel and JSON import files used for this getting started exercise.   This getting started exercise uses one of several different approaches to getting information into a tool for constructing and viewing professional quality knowledge graphs .  Additional getting started guides will be made available over time. Auditchain Luca might not make sense to you if you don't understand the paradigm shift that is occurring and if you have not shifted your mental map. For the next step in your journey, consider trying creat
Read more

Evaluating the Quality of XBRL-based Financial Reports

Image
From the time public companies started submitting XBRL-based financial reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I have been looking at those reports, trying to understand the XBRL-based reports, and trying to figure out how to get them right.  That information was used to figure out how to create software applications that help professional accountants get these reports right. Here is information that summarizes my testing and results which I stopped doing March 31, 2019: Analysis of the high level accounting relationships in the 10-Ks of about 5,716 financial reports  (5,063 public companies, about 89.1% got all these high level accounting relationships consistent with expectation, 623 were inconsistent and manual confirmation revealed the inconsistency was an error) Documentation that helps you understand 26 different types of errors in XBRL-based reports High quality documentation of hundreds of errors in XBRL-based reports submitted by public companies to the SEC Doc
Read more