Taxonomy Architecture Practice Working Group (TAPWG)

April 20, 2010

Shweta Gupta

Chair Reporting Taxonomy Architecture Processes Practice Working Group

Rome, Italy

2

Taxonomies standardize data in Business Reporting Supply Chain (BRSC)

Processes

External

Business

Reporting

Business

Operations

Internal

Business

Reporting

Investment,

Lending,

Regulation

Economic

Policymaking

Taxonomies

Taxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy ScopeTaxonomy Scope

Regulators and AdministratorsExternal

Auditors

Internal

Auditors

Management

Accountants

ParticipantsTrading

Partners

Investors

Business

Publishers

and DataAggregators

Software Vendors and Service Providers

CompaniesCentral

Banks

Define

Regulator/Standard Setter

Create

V

Disseminate

Investors/Analysts

V

BaseTaxonomy

ExtensionExtensionExtensionExtension

ExternalExternalExternalExternalExternalExternalExternalExternal reporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco Systemreporting Eco System

Create

Preparer

Review

Auditor/Creator

V

= ValidateV

Collect

RegulatorData Aggregator

VAggregate / Production

RegulatorData Aggregator

V

ExtensionExtensionExtensionExtensionTaxonomyTaxonomyTaxonomyTaxonomy

Reporting entity extensions

(Banks, Companies, Mutual Funds, Govt. Agencies)

Reporting entity extensions

(Banks, Companies, Mutual Funds, Govt. Agencies)

Extension

Typical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical TaxonomiesTypical Taxonomies

RegulatorsRegulators

Regulators/Standard

Setters/Data Aggregators

Regulators/Standard

Setters/Data Aggregators

Standard setters Standard setters

ExtensionTaxonomies

BaseTaxonomies

Topics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for today

6

The purpose of the Taxonomy Architecture (TA) Practice Working Group is to:

Improve quality and lower costs associated with the business valueof XBRL projects by providing detailed analysis (provide output ---interest of business users) of domain, logical and physical modelsof taxonomies and objectively evaluating their impact on thereusability of their content.

TAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG OverviewTAPWG Overview

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.

• 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

TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)

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

• Specific Topics addressed:

� Displaying Taxonomies with Matrix structures

• Request for Comment (RFC)

� Authorized output from BPB working groups

� Formal communication from BPB to marketplace

TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)TAPWG Overview (contd.)

� Formal communication from BPB to marketplace

� When vetted through marketplace becomes a “Practice Note”

Topics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for today

10

• 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 2009

• 2010 Goals

TAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG ActivitiesTAPWG Activities

• 2010 Goals

� FRTA

� RFC on Concepts Specific

� RFC on Concepts General

� UML Modeling

• Architecture for non-financials

• 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

TAPWGTAPWGTAPWGTAPWGTAPWGTAPWGTAPWGTAPWG

• 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

• Description of RFC

◦ This RFC describes the naming of concepts in XBRLtaxonomies. It sets out the main approaches to namingand considerations which may influence the choicebetween approaches.

◦ This RFC assumes a basic familiarity with the use and

Naming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFC

◦ This RFC assumes a basic familiarity with the use andprinciples of XBRL

◦ Full RFC Can be found at:

http://www.xbrl.org/RFC/IPP-RFC-PWD-2009-08-14.doc

• 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 _032663 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

Naming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFCNaming of concepts RFC

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.

• Comparison Framework for EDINET, IFRS, and US GAAP XBRL Taxonomies RFC

– This Request for Comment (RFC) describes practices thatshould be considered when developing XBRL taxonomies andspecifically when deciding on the design choices for XBRLtaxonomy architecture offered by XBRL specifications.

Comparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFC

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 ininteroperability issues between XBRL implementations.

– Full RFC Can be found at:

http://www.xbrl.org/TCF-PWD-2009-03-31.html

– Existing XBRL specifications offer a variety of ways to achievesimilar, though not identical, objectives in regards to thearchitecture of XBRL taxonomies.

– This RFC identifies and analyses the similarities and differencesbetween existing XBRL taxonomy architectures and solicits inputfrom interested parties who have relevant experience to bring to

Comparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFCComparison framework RFC

from interested parties who have relevant experience to bring tobear. This RFC will be the basis for subsequently establishingbest practices for the architecture of XBRL taxonomies.

We seek public comment on these issues as part of theprocess of establishing best practices for XBRL projects.

• The @precision and @decimals attributes in XBRL indicate therange in which the actual value of the fact that gave rise to itsexpressed value in the XBRL instance lies.

• They are sometimes misunderstood as having a relationship toscaling or presentation. Non conformant implementations and theuse of units of measure such as "thousands" compound softwareinteroperability problems.

Precision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFC

interoperability problems.

• The effects of these attributes on calculations can cause difficultiesin interpretation and misunderstandings are common. Thisdocument provides supplemental information to that provided innormative XBRL International publications, describes existingimplementation conventions, attempts to clarify commonlymisunderstood concepts, and requests additional commentaryregarding empirical implementation experience.

• Preparers and consumers of XBRL instance documents may needinformation about the accuracy of numeric facts that are expressedin an instance document.

• From a computer science and processing point of view it may benecessary to know the number of significant figures of accuracy inthe representation of a numeric fact. This is so as to be able tomake statements about the accuracy of numeric facts that arederived from that input numeric fact as a result of calculations that

Precision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFCPrecision, Decimals and Units RFC

derived from that input numeric fact as a result of calculations thatinvolve the input numeric fact. If there is a need to ensure a certainlevel of accuracy in calculated results, different calculationalgorithms and number representations may be necessary in thecomputer processor that is performing the calculation.

We seek public comment on these issues as part of the processof establishing best practices for XBRL projects.

Topics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for todayTopics for today

19

• How can the TAPWG expand collaborationbetween countries?

• How do we spearhead the updating of FRTA?

• TAPWG is looking for new ideas and

Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary (Future (Future (Future (Future (Future (Future (Future (Future –––––––– What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)What is next?)

• TAPWG is looking for new ideas andcollaborators?

• How does the TAPWG help get companiesexcited about moving towards a commontaxonomy environment using XBRL

• Shweta Gupta – TAPWG ChairSolutions Architect, IRIS Business Services Private ltd.shweta.gupta@irisbusiness.com

About UsAbout UsAbout UsAbout UsAbout UsAbout UsAbout UsAbout Us

21

• 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 http://xbrl.org