Digital Financial Reporting

What started, I guess, back in 2007 when we started to create the US GAAP Taxonomy Architecture has finally arrived where I have been trying to get it since that time. Intermediate steps in the process were XBRLS which Rene van Egmond and I created and the Business Reporting Logical Model which was created by the XBRL International Taxonomy Architecture Working Group.

SEC XBRL Filing Logical Model

I have condensed the US GAAP Taxonomy and SEC XBRL filings into what I believe is a simple, easy to understand and easy to implement logical model. I believe that this logical model, once implemented within software applications, will shield business users from the significantly more technical XBRL syntax. It will also contribute to more consistency in SEC XBRL filings.

Here are things which help to explain this logical model.

• SEC XBRL Filing Primer (Draft). This PDF file provides an overview of the model as well as details. In addition, a number of appendices at the end help to understand certain more detailed aspects of XBRL, should one be interested.
• Logical Model Mind Map. This PDF file provides a visual representation of the components and relations between components which make up the logical model.
• Reorganization of Select 2011 US GAAP Taxonomy Networks. This link is to a viewer which lets you look at a reorganized version of select networks of the US GAAP taxonomy to help you see what the taxonomy would look like if it were remolded to adhere to this logical model. The two primary things done by this reorganization are: (a) model all taxonomy components as explicit [Table]s and (b) consistently model the [Line Items] of each [Table] to conform to a specific set of information models articulated by the logical model. For more information about this reorganized version see here and here.
• Reference Implementation. This link takes you to a reference implementation of an SEC XBRL filing instance and supporting taxonomy which complies with this logical model.
• Comparison test. This link takes you to three XBRL instances which allow for testing comparability between the filings.  This is the reference implementation (above) plus two additional copies. Many of the components are comparable, others are not. This shows what contributes to comparability and what takes away from comparability.
• Relations and Table Info Sets. These two XML files instantiate the relations and tables of the reference implementation above into info sets which use the terminology of the logical model. These info sets help one better understand the components of the logical model. (Note that these are best viewed using Microsoft Internet Explorer.  If you don't see the XML, view the source within you browser.)
• Set of US GAAP Taxonomy Tables. This RSS feed provides a list of the [Table]s in the reorganized US GAAP taxonomy networks.  This helps one see that the elephant can be broken down into bite size chunks. In is my belief that many of these tables need to be further reduced.
• Information Models (A.K.A. Meta patterns, DRAFT). This explains the notion of an information model. (Note that I used to call these meta patterns. This needs to be updated, but it will work in the interim to help you understand what an information model is.

Additional useful examples, business use cases, and other samples can be found here.

Over the past several weeks I have reorganized approximately 57 networks in the US GAAP Taxonomy for a number of purposes. I want to explain what I have discovered.

Official modeling

As a reference point, let me point you to the a rendering of the official modeling of the US GAAP Taxonomy which you can get to here. This is a collection of the networks from most of the commercial and industrial companies entry point. I left a few out.

Reorganized version

You can get to my reorganized version of the US GAAP Taxonomy here. The reorganized version is a select number of networks from the commercial and industrial companies entry point, about 57 networks. If you go through the taxonomy you will see:

• Everything is within an explicit table.  Everything is modeled within an explicit [Table]. This does a number of things.  First, in order to get the pieces to integrate correctly, you need to do that anyway.  More on this in later blog posts. Second, it allows you to "eat the elephant in bite sized chunks." Basically, to me this seems far more manageable.  Third, it give you "a list" of the things in the taxonomy.  In fact, here is that list of [Table]s.
• Consistent, explicit information models. Everything within a [Table]'s set of [Line Items] is is modeled consistently and explicitly.  In the official version, the [Roll Forward] is well identified.  But, the use of [Abstract] is overloaded and could mean three things: [Hierarchy] to indicate a hierarchy with no numeric relations, [Roll Up] to indicate XBRL calculations, and [Abstract] to indicate that is simply upper level organization of the taxonomy. All the information models in the reorganized version are explicitly identified and consistently modeled.

Benefits seen

Here are the benefits that I have observed;

• "The list". You have a list of things which you can easily pull from the taxonomy. Don't get confused here.  Could you easily pull all the [Table]s from the US GAAP taxonomy in its original form?  Sure you could.  The point is you could not pull out everything else in a meaningful organization.
• Reorganize "the list". This list is fine, but this list is better. And this RSS feed is even better. I reorganized my own list easily, because all I had to do is put the tables inside some sort of organization. Besides, I have some list of things I can point to.
• Easier to read the taxonomy. The taxonomy is way, way easier to read and comprehend.
• Eat the elephant in bite size chunks. Because you have identifiable pieces, it is easier to manage the smaller pieces individually.
• Fit into one logical model. Because the taxonomy is consistent, It all fits into one logical model.  Rather than having to deal with XBRL syntax, users can deal with logical model semantics.  More on this later.
• Easy to see semantic flaws. It is easy to see some pretty easy to recognize semantic flaws. See this blog post and this document for more information. For example, why would balance sheet line items and things which could be balance sheet line items have different [Axis]?  From a business semantics point of view this makes no sense.

Still to do

There is still a lot to do really.  This was my first pass. I did not remodel everything, I only moved everything into [Table]s and made the [Line Items] consistent. It is my view that many of the [Table]s are still to big to be optimal for SEC XBRL filing creation or for analysis of the information, they could stand to be smaller.  From what I am seeing there should be more like 750 [Table]s than the 244 that I have.

Also, I need to create the XBRL Formulas which express the financial integrity (i.e. business rules) within each [Table] and between the [Table]s.

Also, I have to totally remodel the Statement of Changes in Equity [Table]. That simply will not work. Not that hard, it is not a [Grid], it is simply a [Roll Forward] like all the other [Roll Forward]s.

And I need to synchronize my reference implementation to the reorganized taxonomy.  I created this to prove what I thought would work would, in fact, work. I have to circle back on a few things.