Layers (Draft 1)

XBRL is a modular set of global standard technical specifications (information system) for exchanging  transferring knowledge.  The following is an explanation of the layers of knowledge within and XBRL-based technical artifact.  The foundational or fundamental technical artifacts or technical building blocks are:

  • XBRL instance: Provide Facts, provide Contexts which differentiate facts form one another, provide Units which enhance the description of Facts more precisely, provide XBRL Footnotes that provide additional information about a Fact or can be used to connect Facts together.
  • XBRL taxonomy schema:  Define XBRL Elements, define Roles, define Arcroles. Used by XBRL instances and XBRL linkbases.
  • XBRL linkbases: Define Relations between XBRL Elements, provide additional Resources (Labels, References, Formulas); provide Networks or groups of Relations.
  • Inline XBRL: XBRL Facts which have been embedded within an XHTML document. (Still connected to a report model.)
The Hello World example and test case provides appropriate technical representations of those technical artifacts or references to such technical artifacts.

Technical artifacts can be loaded by interlinking those artifacts using an approach provided by the XBRL technical specification rules of discovery (Discoverable Taxonomy Set) or they can be loaded using a proprietary approach, here is an approach used by Auditchain Pacioli.
  • 0 Separately
    • 0.1 Instance information only (Facts only): The set of facts provided within an XBRL instance is usable information.
    • 0.2 Taxonomy Schema (Terms only): The terms defined within an XBRL taxonomy schema are usable.
    • 0.3 Linkbase (Relations or Resources only): The relationships defined within an XBRL linkbase are usable.
    • 0.4 Combination: Some combination of the above technical artifacts are provided.
  • 1 Report Model Only (For example, the US GAAP XBRL Taxonomy)
    • 1.1 Report Model Only: The terms, relations, and other resources are provided per some XBRL Taxonomy Entry Point such as the base or primary XBRL taxonomy for US GAAP.
    • 1.2 Externally Enhanced Report Model: A report model is enhanced by some third party.
  • 2 Report and Report Model Only (For example, an XBRL-based report submitted to the SEC by a public company)
    • 2.1 Local Report: All report artifacts are defined locally within the report.
    • 2.2 Standard Report: All report model artifacts are defined globally per some "base" or "primary" report model provided which is referenced by the report and report model.
    • 2.3 Standard Report Extended Locally: Some report model artifacts are defined in a "base" or "primary" report model provided which is referenced but then additional locally defined report model information is defined locally within the report.
  • 3 Externally Enhanced Report and/or Report Model: Some report and/or report model is enhanced by some third party such as computing and adding additional facts such as a "return on investments" and defining a term to represent that extension concept.
    • 3.1 Enhanced Report Model: Adds additional report model information to the report model.
    • 3.2 Enhanced Report: Adds additional reported facts information to the report and report model.
    • 3.3 Enhanced Report Model and/or Report Verification: Adds additional information to report model and/or report for the purposes of report verification.
  • 4 Combined Set of Reports and/or Report Models: A combined set of report models and reports such as the entire set of EDGAR reports provided by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (Can be ENHANCED or NOT ENHANCED)
    • 4.1 Facts: Tend to be very comparable, however third-party mappings need to be provided because they are not provided by the base or primary XBRL taxonomy. Other third party enhancements are necessary to adjust for different reporting styles used by different reporting economic entities.
    • 4.2 Blocks: Tend to be very comparable because they are information oriented, however third-party information enhancements are necessary.
    • 4.3 Disclosures: Tend to be comparable because they are information oriented, however third-party information enhancements are necessary.
    • 4.4 Hypercubes: Tend to not be comparable because they are presentation oriented and identifiers are not unique.
    • 4.5 Networks: Tend to not be comparable because they are presentation oriented and identifiers are not unique.
  • 5 Other
    • As reported: Information provided is as was reported.
    • Normalized: Information provided is normalized.
    • Period comparison: Information is for one entity across multiple periods.
    • Entity comparison: Information is for multiple entities as of the same period.

What information exists within a report model or report whether that information is provided directly within a report or indirectly from a third party to enhance a report model or report impacts the ability to process that report.

Theoretically, is should be possible to identify every fact, every block (set of facts), and every disclosure (set of facts) from a combined set of reports and/or report models. Information can be provided as is (as reported) or normalized (standardized using some model).

Additional Information:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Getting Started with Auditchain Luca (now called Luca Suite)

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 t...
Read more

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

Professional System for Creating Financial Reports Leveraging Knowledge Graphs

Image
The document Professional System for Creating Financial Reports Leveraging Knowledge Graphs explains a new approach, a new paradigm, for creating financial reports.  The document provides a practical, nontechnical description of a professional system for creating provably high-quality financial reports where the report creator is using financial reporting schemes (such as US GAAP and IFRS) where report creator is permitted to modify the report model which leverages global standard knowledge graphs represented using XBRL. This new approach is useful, it is highly novel, and the details were highly complicated to pull together.  This is certainly not an incremental innovation.  It is definitely a disruptive innovation and it could very well be a foundational innovation. You can decide which for yourself. Foundational technologies have two dimensions that need to be considered: novelty and complexity. The more novel the technology is, the more effort needed to ensure users ...
Read more