1 / 12

Taxonomy Testing Techniques Which Yield High-Quality Taxonomies

Taxonomy Testing Techniques Which Yield High-Quality Taxonomies. Charles Hoffman, CPA – UBmatrix. Introductions. Who am I Who are you?. Agenda. Introductions Validation – first step in testing, but not sufficient Issues validation will not catch Testing – the key to a quality taxonomy

maxime
Download Presentation

Taxonomy Testing Techniques Which Yield High-Quality Taxonomies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Taxonomy Testing TechniquesWhich Yield High-Quality Taxonomies Charles Hoffman, CPA – UBmatrix

  2. Introductions • Who am I • Who are you?

  3. Agenda • Introductions • Validation – first step in testing, but not sufficient • Issues validation will not catch • Testing – the key to a quality taxonomy • Testing techniques that work • Strategy to help taxonomy users, that also help test • Problems caused by lack of adequate training • Provided in taxonomy to help instance validation • Questions and discussion

  4. Validation • Necessary, but not sufficient • Interoperability issues • Types of automated validation • Errors (MUSTS, MUST NOT) • Warnings (SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY) • Best practices (not in XBRL specifications, but very, very good ideas) • Inconsistencies (calculations) • FRTA conformance • Types of validation requiring humans

  5. Automated Validation • XML well formed (syntax checking) • XML Schema validation (syntax checking) • XBRL validation (syntax checking, some semantics) • FRTA validation (syntax) • Best practices • Inconsistency checking (for calculations)

  6. Example of Inconsistency Which Causes Issues • Presentation/Calculation mismatch

  7. Human Validation Required • References are the proper/appropriate reference • Labels spelling correct • Labels consistent (Proforma, Pro-forma, Pro forma) • Balance type appropriate • Relations appropriate (calculation, presentation) • Can actually express data you desire to express

  8. Strategy to Help Taxonomy Users, That Also Help Test Taxonomy • Providing things in taxonomy to help instance user • Calculations, business rules, XBRL Dimensions for 100% of computed relationships • Providing user’s manual • Providing a comprehensive sample instance document, forces you to use your own taxonomy • Providing a 100% test of taxonomy coverage • Providing input template with mappings

  9. Problems caused by lack of adequate training • Moving from… • Unconsciously unconscious (don’t realize you have problems) • Consciously unconscious • Unconsciously conscious • Consciously conscious (you are certain you don’t have problems) • Have you PROVED your taxonomy is correct?

  10. Provided in Taxonomy to Help Instance Validation • Business rules • For example, for validating movement analysis calculations • Disclosure checklist type validations, “If you have PPE, you must have PPE policy and PPE explanatory disclosure…”

  11. Conclusions • Automated validation necessary, but not sufficient • Software interoperability is not to be trusted at this point, cut the cards • Human validation requires substantial experience and training (not only training) • Having the proper tools is crucial • What have you done to PROVE (to yourself) your taxonomy works correctly? • Help taxonomy users; only one creator; but many, many users of taxonomy • No matter how hard you test, the “stress” of real use will always turn up additional issues

  12. Questions and Discussion

More Related