Shweta Gupta Chair Reporting Taxonomy Architecture Processes Practice Working Group

Transcription

1 Taxonomy Architecture Practice Working Group (TAPWG) April 20, 2010 Rome, Italy Shweta Gupta Chair Reporting Taxonomy Architecture Processes Practice Working Group

2 2

3 Taxonomy Scope Taxonomies standardize data in Business Reporting Supply Chain (BRSC) Processes Business Operations Internal Business Reporting External Business Reporting Investment, Lending, Regulation Economic Policymaking Taxonomies Participants Trading Partners Companies Management Accountants Internal Auditors External Auditors Business Publishers and Data Aggregators Investors Central Banks Regulators and Administrators Software Vendors and Service Providers

4 External reporting Eco System V Define Disseminate Regulator/Standard Setter Base Taxonomy Investors/Analysts V Create Extension Taxonomy Preparer V Review V Collect V Aggregate / Production Auditor/Creator Regulator Data Aggregator Regulator Data Aggregator V = Validate

5 Typical Taxonomies Reporting entity extensions (Banks, Companies, Mutual Funds, Govt. Agencies) Extension Taxonomies Regulators/Standard Setters/Data Aggregators Regulators Base Taxonomies Standard setters

6 Topics for today 6

7 TAPWG Overview The purpose of the Taxonomy Architecture (TA) Practice Working Group is to: Improve quality and lower costs associated with the business value of XBRL projects by providing detailed analysis (provide output --- interest of business users) of domain, logical and physical models of taxonomies and objectively evaluating their impact on the reusability of their content. Examples are: Identification of the parties sharing and consuming XBRL information Tracking of official and extension taxonomies, instances, and other files Security, authentication and integrity, transport and handling, validation, etc.

8 TAPWG Overview (contd.) Specific Topics addressed: Alternative logical modeling of otherwise identical domain content, including dimensions, tables, tuples, and other constructs Interoperability of instances Usability of data for analytic comparability, especially for financial fundamentals, including linking of distinct taxonomies Style Guides Impact of new XBRL Specifications, including Impact of Generic Links and Filter Specifications Impact of Inline XBRL Specification Impact of Versioning Specification Impact of Formula Specification Impact of Rendering Linkbase Specification

9 TAPWG Overview (contd.) Specific Topics addressed: Displaying Taxonomies with Matrix structures Request for Comment (RFC) Authorized output from BPB working groups Formal communication from BPB to marketplace When vetted through marketplace becomes a Practice Note

10 Topics for today 10

11 TAPWG Activities Naming Of Concepts RFC Released August 2009 Comparison Framework for EDINET, IFRS, and US GAAP XBRL Taxonomies RFC Released Sep 2009 Intellectual Property Policies for XBRL Taxonomies Released Oct Goals FRTA RFC on Concepts Specific RFC on Concepts General UML Modeling Architecture for non-financials

12 TAPWG Membership of WG Comprised of over 20 individuals from diverse backgrounds Means of communication WG meets once a week via telecom Meets face-to-face adjacent to XBRL conferences Diversity of member profiles TAPWG members have experience in large scale taxonomy development projects Most also have experience in domain expertise Poised to face future demands

13 Naming of concepts RFC Description of RFC This RFC describes the naming of concepts in XBRL taxonomies. It sets out the main approaches to naming and considerations which may influence the choice between approaches. This RFC assumes a basic familiarity with the use and principles of XBRL Full RFC Can be found at: 14.doc

14 Naming of concepts RFC There are four main alternatives for the naming of concepts in XBRL: Random character string Alphanumeric string which is not human readable but based on a logical set of rules. (For example, AS-INT-63 or _ identify an asset of a particular type.) Human-readable name derived from a unique element label in the main language of the taxonomy. The character set used may be either a full character set for that language or a simplified character set. Human-readable name derived from the standard element label in English, even where this is not the main language of the users at which the taxonomy is aimed. We seek public comment on these issues as part of the process of establishing best practices for XBRL projects.

15 Comparison framework RFC Comparison Framework for EDINET, IFRS, and US GAAP XBRL Taxonomies RFC This Request for Comment (RFC) describes practices that should be considered when developing XBRL taxonomies and specifically when deciding on the design choices for XBRL taxonomy architecture offered by XBRL specifications. While being a reassuring sign that XBRL adoption is on the rise, this diversity of XBRL taxonomy architectures may result in interoperability issues between XBRL implementations. Full RFC Can be found at:

16 Comparison framework RFC Existing XBRL specifications offer a variety of ways to achieve similar, though not identical, objectives in regards to the architecture of XBRL taxonomies. This RFC identifies and analyses the similarities and differences between existing XBRL taxonomy architectures and solicits input from interested parties who have relevant experience to bring to bear. This RFC will be the basis for subsequently establishing best practices for the architecture of XBRL taxonomies. We seek public comment on these issues as part of the process of establishing best practices for XBRL projects.

17 Precision, Decimals and Units RFC attributes in XBRL indicate the range in which the actual value of the fact that gave rise to its expressed value in the XBRL instance lies. They are sometimes misunderstood as having a relationship to scaling or presentation. Non conformant implementations and the use of units of measure such as "thousands" compound software interoperability problems. The effects of these attributes on calculations can cause difficulties in interpretation and misunderstandings are common. This document provides supplemental information to that provided in normative XBRL International publications, describes existing implementation conventions, attempts to clarify commonly misunderstood concepts, and requests additional commentary regarding empirical implementation experience.

18 Precision, Decimals and Units RFC Preparers and consumers of XBRL instance documents may need information about the accuracy of numeric facts that are expressed in an instance document. From a computer science and processing point of view it may be necessary to know the number of significant figures of accuracy in the representation of a numeric fact. This is so as to be able to make statements about the accuracy of numeric facts that are derived from that input numeric fact as a result of calculations that involve the input numeric fact. If there is a need to ensure a certain level of accuracy in calculated results, different calculation algorithms and number representations may be necessary in the computer processor that is performing the calculation. We seek public comment on these issues as part of the process of establishing best practices for XBRL projects.

19 Topics for today 19

20 Summary Summary (Future What is next?) How can the TAPWG expand collaboration between countries? How do we spearhead the updating of FRTA? TAPWG is looking for new ideas and collaborators? How does the TAPWG help get companies excited about moving towards a common taxonomy environment using XBRL

21 About Us Shweta Gupta TAPWG Chair Solutions Architect, IRIS Business Services Private ltd. XBRL International, Inc. Global consortium to cooperatively create a common business reporting language based on XML Non-profit consortium of over 600 member organizations See 21