Taxonomy%20Architectures%20and%20Taxonomy%20Frameworks%20

1
Taxonomy Architectures and Taxonomy Frameworks
Local GAAPs and International GAAPs Consideration

• Maciej Piechocki XBRL Poland

2
Agenda

• Introduction
• Taxonomies Overview
• Taxonomy Architectures
• Taxonomy Frameworks
• Issues and Considerations

3
Projects

• Bundesanzeiger (Germany)
• Monitor Polski B (Poland)
• National Bank of Poland
• Polish taxonomy framework
• IFRS-GP taxonomy development

4
Observed issues

• Worldwide many taxonomies
• Attempts to reuse taxonomies
• Big differences in taxonomy architectures
• Big differences in taxonomy frameworks
• Coexistence of local and international GAAPs

5
Taxonomies Overview

• local GAAPs Spain, Belgium, Poland, Germany,
  Sweden, UK, Ireland
• IFRS extensions Holland, Spain, FINREP
• other taxonomies GermanCD, COREP, GCD, etc.

6
Introduction

• Taxonomy architecture a way of building a
  taxonomy especially in regards of the internal
  constructs, patterns, structures in single
  taxonomies (DTS)
• Taxonomy framework a way of combining different
  taxonomies (DTSs) together for a jurisdiction or
  industry (requirement is the import of a stand
  alone taxonomy)

7
Taxonomy Architectures

• Issues with tuples
• Enumerations use
• Modularity
• Extensibility
• Element names conventions
• Balance attribute
• Not using context for differentiation between
  facts
• Etc.

8
Taxonomy Frameworks

• XBRL Taxonomy Space
• Fully Integrated Extension Building
• FINREP modularisation proposal
• NBP taxonomy framework
• Polish taxonomy framework
• Dutch taxonomy project
• US GAAP Taxonomy Framework

9
XBRL Taxonomy Space
XBRL Taxonomy Space HoPi2005, 32
10
Fully Integrated Extension Building
Fully Integrated Extension Building SiRa2004,
22
11
FINREP Modularised
12
NBP Taxonomy Framework
COREP
FINREP
PZR
MSR
SOLO
SKONSOLIDOWANY
SOLO
SOLO
SKONSOLIDOWANY
M
K
R
K
R
M
K
R
M
K
R
K
R
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. COREP SOLO MIESIECZNY
2. COREP SOLO KWARTALNY
3. COREP SOLO ROCZNY
4. COREP SKONSOLIDOWANY KWARTALNY
5. COREP SKONSOLIDOWANY ROCZNY
6. FINREP PZR SOLO MIESIECZNY
7. FINREP PZR SOLO KWARTALNY
8. FINREP PZR SOLO ROCZNY
9. FINREP MSR SOLO MIESIECZNY
10. FINREP MSR SOLO KWARTALNY
11. FINREP MSR SOLO ROCZNY
12. FINREP MSR SKONSOLIDOWANY KWARTALNY
13. FINREP MSR SKONSOLIDOWANY ROCZNY
13
Polish Taxonomy Framework
14
Dutch Taxonomy Project
15
US GAAP Taxonomy Framework
16
Issues and Considerations

• No best practices in the area of taxonomy
  extensions (few of FRTA rules covering
  extensions)
• No best practices in the are of taxonomy
  frameworks (many different approaches)
• Growing number of cases where the issue of
  taxonomy framework arises
• Modularity issues
• Tuples extensions

17
Dangers

• Taxonomies are XBRL Spec 2.1 consistent but not
  compatible
• Issues for local jurisdictions (while building
  taxonomy frameworks)
• Issues for software vendors (creating XBRL
  solutions)
• Issues for submitters (e.g. VW)
• Issues for receivers (e.g. NBP)

18
Next Steps

• Gather information on taxonomy architectures
• Gather information on taxonomy frameworks
• Comparison analysis paper
• FRTA input

19
Discussion

• Should national taxonomies be built as frameworks
  or should loosely coupled taxonomies be
  maintained?
• Should the taxonomy frameworks be harmonised in
  Europe?
• Should taxonomy architectures be harmonised in
  Europe?
• Should best practices for architectures and
  frameworks exist and who should maintain them?

20
Discussion

• Maciej Piechocki XBRL Poland