Global Standard Knowledge Assembly

My PROOF (and my other examples) provide examples of a global standard XBRL-based knowledge assembly of a financial reporting scheme, a financial report model created by a reporting economic entity using that financial reporting scheme, and a financial report using that financial report model that is based on the financial reporting scheme.  That entire knowledge assembly is validated using a rules engine that is specialized for this specific type of knowledge assembly to verify that the report and report model are complete, consistent, and precise. This mechanism is described by the Seattle Method.

That knowledge assembly contains data and meta data related to financial accounting and financial reporting.   The physical syntax of the entire knowledge assembly is global standard XBRL.  The XBRL technical syntax is used to define logical terms, structures, associations, assertions, restrictions, constraints, and facts.

The logical model of a financial report is part of that assembly.  Key portions of the conceptual framework of a financial reporting scheme is a part of the knowledge assembly.  The different reporting styles permitted by that financial reporting scheme is part of the knowledge assembly.  Wider-narrower (a.k.a. type-subtype or general-special) relations are part of the knowledge assembly.  Fundamental accounting relations that are universal to a specific reporting style is part of the knowledge assembly.  How to compute financial ratios used to analyze financial information reported per that financial reporting scheme are part of the knowledge assembly. Rules are declarative in nature.

A specific economic entity's report model is also another part of the knowledge assembly.  Each individual XBRL-based financial report submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could be part of the knowledge assembly.  Similarly, the European Single Market Authority (ESMA) set of XBRL-based financial reports could be part of the knowledge assembly.

All of the above is described both logically and physically/technically by the knowledge assembly.  But accountants only need to interact with the logical representation; the technical aspects including all the details of the global standard XBRL technical syntax are hidden from accountants, but are there for the computer scientists to build software.  Accountants, auditors, and analysts need only understand the logic of accounting and reporting to interact with the knowledge assembly using software built specifically for that purpose.

A knowledge assembly is a set (a.k.a. collection) of knowledge graphs. A knowledge graph is a machine-readable structured representation of knowledge (semantics) in the form of a directed acyclic typed graph related to a particular area of interest; in our case the area of interest is financial accounting and reporting.  

A knowledge assembly is a machine-readable network (network theory) of things and relations between things represented as a set (collection) of machine-readable graphs that are also human-readable after the machine-readable information has been rendered using software.  The things and relations (semantics) are classified or grouped in helpful/useful ways.

Semantics is the science of giving meaning to data.  Knowledge assemblies are about semantics which is data in context, a.k.a. information. 

Knowledge is more than just an ontology.  Knowledge = ontology (things and relations between things) + rules (assertions, restrictions, constraints).  

A knowledge assembly can be explained using a logical theory and enforced using a logical schema that verifies/validates the contents of the knowledge assembly.

A knowledge assembly is a logical system.  Knowledge assembly terminology, described by a logical conceptualization, is grounded in the more approachable and innately understandable terminology of the branch of logic which is part of the discipline of philosophy, rather than the technical jargon/terminology of computer science which is less approachable to business professionals. And to be clear, we are not working with "data"; we are working with "information" which is data in context. Using information, a skilled and experienced craftsperson can create knowledge which leads to insight which leads to wisdom. (Credit for the graphic below)


These global standard knowledge assemblies will be the basis for computational professional services. New tools such as the modern spreadsheets and modern business intelligence software will be used for working with information using machines that augment the skills of professional accountants much like a calculator augments ones ability to do math. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) will power these new tools.

This explainable artificial intelligence will come in different forms.  A hybrid of different types of artificial intelligence will drive computational professional services.  There is no "one-size-fits-all" artificial intelligence that will magically solve all problems.  The right type of artificial intelligence approach will be used for the job.  These knowledge assemblies will be created by skilled and experienced professionals that weave together these knowledge assemblies.  These rule-based knowledge assemblies (deductive reasoning) will be the basis for or the "training data" for enabling machine learning (inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning).

Make no mistake: weaving all this together elegantly into easy to use software that provides useful functionality that is approachable to business professionals is a not trivial task.  To make this work, the following is necessary:

  1. Logical model(s).
  2. Physical/technical syntax to exchange information and get things into and out of the database.
  3. Databases containing information (data plus context).
  4. Assertions, constraints, restrictions represented in machine-readable form stored in the database to enforce the logical model and keep quality high.
  5. Query/rules/semantics processing "logic engine" that understands the logical model (#1) and can read the database (#3) can read the rules (#4).
  6. GUI/UX that expose this functionality to business professionals on their terms. (See the worlds first software tool that achieves this; or experience this tool for yourself)
  7. APIs that drive the GUI/UX.

Bonus points for enhancing the above by leveraging digital distributed ledgers to provide for tamper proof audit trails, cryptography to create functionality such as Merkle proofs, and other necessary pieces that enable verifiability, trust, and proof.  More bonus points, perhaps, if some cryptocurrency is used to enable a value exchange mechanism within some sort of system.

All of the above will modernize the universal technology of accountability, making it more effective for the information age. New tools will be created for accounting and audit. Key to this is the effective management of semantic hygiene.

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