XBRL Model Ontologies: Structuring Business Intelligence Rob Nehmer Oakland University Rochester MI 6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013 1
Dec 18, 2015
1
XBRL Model Ontologies: Structuring Business Intelligence
Rob NehmerOakland University
Rochester MI
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
2
Formal Modeling and Ontology Development
Syntax and Semantics An Ontological Framework Model Theory Cases
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Overview
3
Teller (2008) – XBRL as a formal rep of accounting? No, just to store data
Swanson and Freeze (2009) ◦ Ontology: rendering unstructured contexts into
structured frameworks◦ Combine FASB conceptual framework,
presentation (statement), and GAAP codification◦ Value chain (internal) vs. valuation model
(external)◦ No XBRL
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Formal Modeling and Ontology Development
4
Lupasc et al (2010) – REA framework as ontology of AIS, add value chain
Geerts and McCarthy (1999) – OO and semantic approach which introduces ontology as a future development to include enterprise knowledge management
Guan et al (2006) – limitations of REA wrt ontology. Suggest adding Bunge-Wand-Weber modeling constructs to it.
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Formal Modeling and Ontology Development
5
Sugumaran and Storey (2002) – prototype an ontology management system
Chou et al (2008)◦ Operationalize Sugumaran and Storey in
accounting context in five stages Collect accounting information from enterprise Analyze the collected items Create accounting taxonomy Use DB Schema to implement items and
relationships between them Generate accounting ontology (not done)
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Formal Modeling and Ontology Development
6
Formalizations (including the XBRL specs)◦ Strings of symbols comprise the language of the
formalization◦ Syntax
Manipulation of strings by inference, parsing and validation tools
Purely formal Concerned with the production of valid sentences,
i.e., strings of symbols
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Syntax and Semantics
7
Semantics◦ “Meanings” attached to the strings◦ Formally: the meanings and an interpretation
function mapping the formalism (syntax) to the meaning (semantics)
◦ Natural/hermeneutic: interpreting the meaning and mapping dynamically back to the formal representation in syntax
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Syntax and Semantics
86th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Syntax and Semantics in Teller (2008)
96th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
An Ontological Framework
XBRL Abstract Model
Conceptual Framework Ontology
Qualitative Characteristic
s
Conceptual Model
Map Map
Formalization/conceptualization
Design
Must emphasize value adding
activities
10
A branch of mathematics concerned with constructing models with a concrete operationalization of semantic truth
Includes:◦ The symbols of a formal syntactic language, L◦ A set of objects about which the language has
meaningful thing to say, M◦ An interpretation function, φ, between the
symbols of L and the objects of M
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Model Theory
116th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Model Theory (cont.)
AxiomsDeduction
s
Derived
Theory
Language
Ownership
Transact
Account
InterpretationFunction
Real World
12
Example: Primary Mappings◦ Map the set of symbols for constants in L, the
integer symbols and symbols for vectors of integers to, for example, φ(zi) in M.
◦ The functions are mapped from the set of symbols for functions in L, that is, f and θ, of degree i to, for example, φ(f) on M X M X...X M = Mi with meanings in M as in 1 above.
◦ The predicates are mapped from the set of symbols for predicates in L of degree i to a subset contained in Mi.
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Model Theory (cont.)
13
Process◦ Create/discover the semantical system including
the interrelationships between its components◦ Create the syntactic language to describe the
semantical system◦ Create the interpretation functions between the
semantical and syntactic systems
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Model Theory (cont.)
14
Example: Truth Function of the Interpretation◦ φ maps relation symbols of a semantical system
with degree i from each predicate in a predicate calculus with the same degree.
◦ φ maps the constants of the semantical system from each individual of the predicate calculus.
◦ σ˅τ =
6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Model Theory (cont.)
156th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Case 1 – Disparate Semantics
1
2
34
5 B
C
ASyntactic Domains
Semantics
φ1 φ2
1
4
9
E F G
166th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Case 2 –Homogenous Semantics
1
2
34
5
0
-
+
/
*B
C
ASyntactic Domains
Risk
Control
Semantics
φ1
φ2
φ3
176th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Case 3 – Chained Semantics
t
f(t)
h(t)
g(t)
f(x)
f(x-1)
f(x-2)
g(x)
g(x-1)
g(x-2)
φ1
φ2
186th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL April 25 – 27, 2013
Case 4 – Mixed Models
1
2
34
5 0
-
+
/
*
Syntactic Domains
Risk
Control
Semantics
φ1
φ2
φ3φ4
196th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Example – Classic Computer Architectures
Applications
Services
Operating System
BIOS
CPU
206th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL
April 25 – 27, 2013
Example – Business Unit Unique IDs
Vending Machine Vendor
Business Client A
Business Client C
Business Client B
Internet Client 1
Internet Client 2
φ1
φ2