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

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.

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